WRBi 



innftftnfii 

n 



Rtttti 




n^ C C 3/3 

Book - |3 5C-7 



SMITHSONIAN DEPOSIT. 




&g 



YALE STUDIES IN ENGLISH 
ALBERT S. COOK, Editor 



SOME ACCOUNTS 
OF THE BEWCASTLE CROSS 

BETWEEN THE YEARS 1607 AND 1861 



REPRINTED AND ANNOTATED 
BY 

ALBERT STANBURROUGH COOK 

PROFESSOR OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE 
IN TALE UNIVERSITY 



518515 



NEW YORK 

HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 
1914 

Monograph 



YALE STUDIES IN ENGLISH 
ALBERT S. COOK, Editor 



SOME ACCOUNTS 
OF THE BEWCASTLE CROSS 

BETWEEN THE YEARS 1607 AND 1861 

REPRINTED AND ANNOTATED 
BY 

ALBERT STANBURROUGH COOK 

PROFESSOR OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE 
IN TALE UNIVERSITY 



518514* 

AUG 3 1; 



NEW YORK 

HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 
1914 




o 



6 



«P 



4> 






\tbb libra*"*! 

l f COJJGB*** 1 



WEIMAR : PRINTED BY R. WAGNER SOHN. 



PREFACE 

Since opinion concerning the date of the Bewcastle 
Cross has varied so widely, I have thought that the 
considerations brought forward in my monograph, 
The Date of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses (1912), 
might fitly be supplemented by such a series of de- 
scriptions and opinions as would enable the student 
who might not have ready access to a large library 
to trace the history of antiquarian thought on this 
subject. The present selection will be found, I be- 
lieve, to contain the most important papers and pas- 
sages relating to this monument between the year 
1607, when Nicholas Roscarrock, a guest of Lord 
William Howard's at Naworth Castle, touched upon it 
in a letter to Camden, and 1861, when Father Haigh 
resumed his earlier study in his Conquest of Britain. 

I shall not undertake here to deduce all the con- 
clusions which might be drawn from a comparison 
of these accounts. Some of them will be immediately 
apparent to the attentive reader ; others will be pointed 
out in the notes. Three or four facts, however, are 
sufficiently curious to be remarked. One is that the 
first two persons that deal with the cross, Roscarrock 
and Camden, refer it to the twelfth century. Another 
is that the chequers on the north side, on which they 
based their opinion, serve now, though for a different 
reason, to suggest the same general period. A third 
is that the two persons who are most responsible for 
creating the popular impression that the cross was 
erected in the seventh century, Haigh and Maughan, 
contradict each other and themselves on the most 



iv Preface 

essential points. A fourth is that nothing appears to 
have been more legible upon the monument two cen- 
turies and a quarter ago than at present: Cynnburug, 
for example, is as clear in the most recent photo- 
graph as it was to Nicolson in 1685. 

The engravings, if compared with the photographs 
in my recent book, will show how fancy rioted in 
the earlier delineations, and how inexactly the sculp- 
ture was rendered throughout the eighteenth century. 
With greater accuracy in the representation of the 
facts, and an exacter science in the interpretation of 
them, it may be hoped that the cross will soon be 
assigned to its proper historical place, where, instead 
of being a stumbling-block and cause of bewilder- 
ment, it may serve to illustrate the characteristics of 
the age to which it belongs. 

Yale University, 

July 9, 19 13. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



PAGE 

m 



Preface 

Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross ... 1 

I. Roscarrock's Letter to Camden, 1607 . . 1 

II. Camden's Account, 1607 2 

III. Nicolson's Letter to Obadiah Walker, 1685 . 3 

IV. Nicolson's Episcopal Visitation of Bewcastle, 1703 9 
V. Cox's Magna Britannia, 1720 . . . . 11 

VI. Smith's Letter to the Gentleman's Magazine, 1742 12 

VII. Armstrong's Plate, 1775 17 

VIII. Hutchinson's History of Cumberland, 1794 . 20 

IX. Henry Howard's Account, 1801 . . . 24 

X. Lysons' Magna Britannia, 1816 ... 27 

XI. Maughan's First Account, 1854 .... 29 

XII. Haigh's First Account, 1857 . . . . 36 

Xin. Maughan's Second Account, 1857 ... 51 

XIV. Haigh's Second Account, 1861 .... 123 

XV. Notes 125 



SOME ACCOUNTS 
OF THE BEWCASTLE CROSS 

I. ROSCARROCK'S LETTER TO CAMDEN, 1607. 

[The first mention of the Bewcastle Cross that I have found is 
in the following sentence from a letter by Nicholas Roscarrock, then 
residing in the family of Lord William Howard ('Belted Will'), 
written to William Camden from ' Nawarde ' (Naworth Castle) 
Aug. 7, 1607 (seeCamdeni Epistolce, pp. 90— 92, and Surlees Soc. Publ. 
68. 506—7). Roscarrock calls Camden's attention to two errors 
in the latter's fifth edition of the Britannia, and evidently hopes that 
Camden (addressed as Clarenceulx king-of-arms) can utilize his sug- 
gestions in the sixth edition, which bears date the same year. On 
September 7 Camden had a fall from his horse, and during the con- 
finement of nine months which resulted, he put the last hand to 
the sixth edition (Diet. Nat. Biog.). Accordingly, Roscarrock' s 
letter must be earlier than Camden's edition of 1607. 

For further information concerning Roscarrock, consult Surtees 
Soc. Pub. 68. 505—9, and Diet. Nat. Biog. ,] 

Understanding (good Mr. Clarenceulx) that your 
Britayne ys at this present in printinge, and reddy to 
come forthe, I thought fitt (in a small showe of our 
ancient love) to geve you notice of twoe escapes in 
the last edition. 

. . . Yf you have any occasion to speak of the 
Cross of Buechastell, 1 I assure myselfe the inscription 
of one syde ys, Hubert de Vaux 2 ; the rather, for that 
the cheeky coate 3 ys above that on the same syde ; 
and on the other 4 the name of the Ermyt that made 
yt, and I canne in no sorte be brought to thincke it 
Eborax, 5 as I perceave you have been advertised. 



[1] 



II. CAMDEN'S ACCOUNT, 1607. 

[William Camden's (1551— 1623) Britannia was first published in 
1586. As late as the fifth edition, 1600, there was no mention of the 
Bewcastle Cross, but in the edition of 1607 (p. 644) the following 
passage appeared. The first translation below is from Gibson's 
Camden, 1722 (practically identical with that of 1695), and the second 
from the second edition of Gough's Camden (1806).] 

In ccemiterio Crux in viginti plus minus pedes ex 
vno quadrato saxo graphice excisa surgit, & inscripta, 
sed Uteris ita fugientibus vt legi nequaquam possint. 
Quod autem ipsa Crux ita interstincta sit, vt clypeus 
gentilitius familise de Vaulx, eorum opus fuisse existi- 
mare licet. 

In the Church-yard, is a Cross, of one entire 
square stone, about twenty foot high, and curiously 
wrought. There is an Inscription too, but the letters 
are so dim that they are not legible. But seeing the 
Cross is of the same kind, as that in the Arms of the 
Vaulx, 1 we may suppose that it has been erected by 
some of that Family. 

In the church-yard is a cross near 20 feet high, 
of one stone, neatly wrought, and having an inscrip- 
tion, but the letters too much consumed by time to 
be legible. But the cross itself being chequered like 
the arms of the family of Vaulx makes it probable 
that it was their work. 



w 



III. NICOLSON'S LETTER TO 
OBADIAH WALKER, 1685. 

[William Nicolson (1655— 1727) was, when he wrote the subjoined 
letter. Archdeacon of Carlisle and Rector of Great Salkeld, Cumber- 
land. In 1702 he became Bishop of Carlisle, and in 171 8 Bishop 
of Derry, in Ireland. In 1678 he had visited Leipzig, ' to learn 
German and the northern languages of Europe ' (Diet. Nat. Biog.). 
He wrote various historical works and antiquarian papers, among 
the latter being an account of his visit to Ruth well Cross in 1703, for 
which see my paper in the Publications of the Modern Language 
Association of America 17. 367—374. The appended letter is from 
Philosophical Transactions 15 (1685). 1287—91. 

For Obadiah Walker (1616— 1699), Master of University College 
from 1676 to 1689, see Diet. Nat. Biog. He was, with others, author 
of a Latin version (1678) of John Spelman's life of King Alfred. 
Nicolson has an entry in his diary under date of Oct. 20, 1684, re- 
Cording the writing of a letter to Walker about the Bridekirk font, 
in which he promised ere long a fuller account of that and the ' Ped- 
estal at Bewcastle.'] 

A Letter from Mr William Nicolson, to the Reverend 
Mr Walker, Master of University Coll : in Oxford ; con- 
cerning a Runic Inscription at Beaucastle. 

'Tis now high time to make good my promise of 
giving you a more perfect Account of our two Runic 
Inscriptions at Beau-Castle and Bridekirk. The former 
is fallen into such an untoward part 1 of our Country, 
and so far out of the common Road, that I could not 
much sooner have either an opportunity, or the Cour- 
age to look after it. I was assur'd by the Curate 2 of 
the place, (a Person of good sence & Learning in 
greater matters,) that the Characters were so miserably 
worn out since the Lord William Howard's time, (by 
whom they were communicated 3 to S r H. Spelman, & 
mentioned by Wormius, Mon. Dan. p. 161,) that they 
were now wholly defaced, and nothing to be met 

[3] 



4 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

with worth my while. The former part of this Rela- 
tion I found to be true : for (tho' it appears that the 
forementioned Inscription has bin much larger 1 then 
Wormius has given it, yet) 'tis at present so far lost, 
that, in six or seven lines, none of the Characters are 
fairly discernable, save only II P "1* h R ; and these 
too are incoherent, and at great distance from each 
other. However, this Epystilium 2 Cruris (as S r H. Spel- 
man, in his Letter to Wormius, has called it,) is to 
this day a noble Monument ; and highly merits the 
View of a Curious Antiquary. The best account, 
S r , I am able to give you of it, be pleased to take 
as follows. 

'Tis one entire Free-Stone of about five yards 3 in 
height, washed over (as the Font at Bridekirk,) with 
a white oyly Cement, 4 to preserve it the better from 
the injuries [1288] of time and weather. The figure 
of it inclines to a square Pyramid ; each side whereof 
is near two foot 5 broad at the bottom, but upwards 
more tapering. On the West side of the Stone, we 
have three fair Draughts, which evidently enough 
manifest the Monument to be Christian. The Lowest 
of these represents the Pourtraicture of a Layman ; 
with an Hawk, or Eagle, perch'd on his Arm. Over 
his head are the forementioned ruines of the Lord 
Howard's Inscription. Next to these, the Picture of 
some Apostle, Saint, or other Holy man, in a sacerdo- 
tal Habit, with a Glory round his Head. On the top 
stands the Effigies of the B. V. with the Babe in her 
Arms ; and both their Heads encircled with Glories 
as before. 

On the North we have a great deal of Checquer- 
work ; subscribed with the following Characters, 6 fairly 
legible. 

llrhnf-fBHRfl **|| 



Nicolsoris Letter, i68j 5 

Upon the first sight of these Letters, I greedily 
ventured to read them Rynburu : and was wonderfully 
pleased to fancy, that this word thus singly written, 
must necessarily betoken the final extirpation and 
Burial 1 of the Magical Runce in these parts, reasonably 
hoped for, upon the Conversion of the Danes to the 
Christian Faith. For, that the Danes were antiently, 
as well as some of the Laplanders at present, gross 
Idolaters and Sorcerers, is beyond Controversy ; and 
I could not but remember, that all our Historians tell 
us, that they brought their Paganism along with them 
into this Kingdome. And therefore 'twas not very 
difficult to imagine that they might for some time 
practise their Hocus tricks here in the North ; where 
they were most numerous and least disturbed. This 
conceit was the more heightened, by reflecting upon 
the natural superstition of our Borderers at this day ; 
who are much better acquainted with, and do [1289] 
more firmly believe, their old Legendary stories of 
Fayries and Witches, then the Articles of their Creed. 
And to convince me yet further that they are not 
utter strangers to the Black Arts of their forefathers, 
I accidentally met with a Gentleman in the neigh- 
bourhood, who shewed me a Book of Spells and 
Magical Receipts, taken (two or three days before) 
in the pocket of one of our Moss-Troopers : wherein, 
among many other conjuring Feats, was prescribed 
a certain Remedy for an Ague, by applying a few 
barbarous Characters to the Body of the party dis- 
tempered. These, methought, were very near akin to 
Wormius's RAMRUNER ; which, he says, differed 
wholly in figure and shape from the common Runce. 
For, though he tells us, that these Ramruner were so 
called, Eo quod Molestias, dolores, morbosque hisce in- 
fligere inimicis soliti sint Magi; yet his great friend 



6 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

Arng : Jonas, more to our purpose, says that — His 
etiam usi sunt ad benefaciendum, juvandum, Medicandum 
tarn animi quam Corporis morbis ; atque ad ipsos Caco- 
dcemones pellendos & fugandos. I shall not trouble you 
with a draught of this Spell ; because I have not yet 
had an opportunity of learning, whether it may not 
be an ordinary one, and to be met with (among 
others of the same nature) in Paracelsus or Cornelius 
Agrippa. 

If this conjecture be not allowable ; I have, S r , 
one more which (it may be) you will think more 
plausible then the former. For if, instead of making 
the third and fourth Letters to be two It. JL. If. If. x we 
should suppose them to be %, Jf. E. £. the word will 
then be Ryeeburu ; which I take to signify, in the old 
Danish Language, Ccemiterium or Cadaverum Sepulchrum. 
For, tho the true old Runic word for Cadaver be usually 
written ♦R^-fr Hrae; yet the H may, without any 
violence to the Orthography of that tongue, be omit- 
ted at pleasure ; and then the difference of spelling the 
word, here at Beaucastle, and on some of the ragged 
Monuments in Denmark, will not [1290] be great. And 
for the countenancing of this latter Reading, I think 
the above mentioned Checquer work may be very 
available : since in that we have a notable Emblem 
of the Tumuli, or burying places of the Antients. 
(Not to mention the early custome of erecting Crosses 
and Crucifixes in Church-yards : which perhaps, being 
well weighed, might prove another encouragement to 
this second Reading.) I know the Checquer to be 
the Arms of the Vaux's, or De Vallibus, the old Propri- 
etors of this part of the North ; but that, I presume, 
will make nothing for our turn. Because this & the 
other carved work on the Cross, must of necessity 
be allow'd, to bear a more antient date 2 then any of 



Nicolson's Letter, i68f 7 

the Remains of that Name and Family ; which cannot 
be run up higher then the Conquest. 

On the East we have nothing but a few Flourishes, 
Draughts of Birds, Grapes and other Fruits : all which 
I take to be no more then the Statuary's Fancy. 

On the South, Flourishes and conceits, as before, 
and towards the bottom, the following decay'd In- 
scription. 

II r / p. nBT l 'ITRM-rril 

The Defects in this short piece are sufficient to dis- 
courage me from attempting to expound it. But 
(possibly) it may be read thus. 

Gag Ubbo Erlat, i. e. 
Latrones Ubbo Vicit. 

I confess this has no Affinity (at least, being thus 
interpreted) with the foregoing Inscription : but may 
well enough suit with the manners of both antient 
and modern Inhabitants of this Town and Country. 

Upon your pardon and Correction, S r , of the Im- 
pertinencies and Mistakes in this, (which I shall hum- 
bly hope [1291] for,) I shall trouble you with my 
further observations on the Font at Bridekirk ; and 
to all your other Commands shall pay that ready 
obedience which becomes, 

Carlile, Your most obliged and 

Nov. 2. Faithfull Servant 

1685. WILL. NICOLSON. 



Addition of (1695) 1722. 

[This letter is reprinted in. Gibson's edition of Camden's Britannia, 
1695 and 1722, omitting the last paragraph, and substituting one 



8 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

based upon Nicolson's (then and ever since) unpublished History of 
Northumberland, Part 6. This runs, in the edition of 1722 (2.103 1) :J 

Thus far of that ancient Monument ; besides which, 
there is a large Inscription on the west ; and on the 
south side of the Stone, these Letters 1 are fairly dis- 
cernible, 

iWRkMlhlArri* 



IV. NICOLSON'S EPISCOPAL VISITATION 
OF BEWCASTLE, 1703. 

[As stated above, Nicolson became Bishop of Carlisle in 1702. 
The next year he visited the various churches of his diocese, and 
noted in what condition they were. The results of the visitations in 
1703 and 1704 are embodied in the Miscellany Accounts of the Diocese 
of Carlile, published in 1877 by the Cumberland and Westmoreland 
Antiquarian and Archaeological Society. The subjoined account 
of Bewcastle is from pp. 56—7.] 

Beaucastle. Jul. 30. The Church * is built, Chapple- 
wise, all of a heighth, and no Distinction betwixt 
the Body and the Chancel ; onely there's a small 
Ascent towards the Communion -Table. No Rails. 
The Children of the parish are taught here by one 
John Morley ; who was brought hither by (the pres- 
ent Rector) M r Tong, 2 no such Education haveing 
been formerly known in these parts. The man has 
not yet any setled Salary ; nor is it probable that he 
will have any in hast. The pulpit and Reading-Desk 
are in a tolerable Condition ; & so are the Seats, 
being all lately furnished w th backs, uniformly clumsie. 
Nothing else is so. There's very little plaister on the 
Walls ; no Appearance of any such thing as y e Queen's 
Arms or y 9 Ten Commandments. No Bell, to call 
them in to Divine Service. The Font wants a pedestal, 
and looks like a Swine's Trough. 

The church-yard is pretty well fenced ; and a very 
small Charge will keep it so. M r Benson 3 and I try'd 
to recover the Runic Inscription on y e West Side of 
the cross : But, tho' it looked promiseing at a Distance, 4 
we could not assuredly make out even so much as 
that single line 5 which S r H.Spelman long since Com- 

[9] 



io Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

municated to 01. Wormius. That Short one on the 
North (which I noted in my Letter to Ob. Walker, long 
since publish'd in y e Philosophical Transaction, & the 
last Edition 1 of Camden by D r Gibson) is as fair & 
legible as it was at first ; and stands exactly thus : 2 

rhR+hJ3n/in X. 

Of which, and the Embroydery that's about it, and 
of the Imagery on the other Sides, I have no more 
to say than what I have said almost twenty years 
agoe ; save that, on the South, there's a many-headed 
Thistle, 3 which has not (probably) any Relation to the 
Neighboring Kingdom of Scotland, any more than the 
Vine w ch is (a little lower) on the same Side. 

[57] The Parsonage-House is lately rebuilt by M r 
Tong ; who has made it a pretty convenient Dwelling. 
Into this, M r Allen (the Curate, who also assists M r 
Culcheth at Stapleton) is now removeing his family. 
The Man's a poor ejected Episcopalian of the Scottish 
Nation. The Men of Beaucastle would be well content 
with him, if they had him wholly (as in Justice they 
ought) to themselves. 



V. COX'S MAGNA BRITANNIA, 1720. 

[In the Magna Britannia et Hibernia, Antiqua et Nova, published 
anonymously in 1720, but edited by Thomas Cox, there is a descrip- 
tion (1. 388-9) based upon Nicolson's letter, as republished by Gib- 
son. In the reproduction of the five runes which Nicolson found in 
the long inscription, the rune for S (next to the last) is here replaced 
by N. A novelty is the imaginary representation of the chequered 
(north) side of the cross, as given below. The inscription at the foot 
reems to be recut from that in Nicolson's letter. This figure is 
reproduced in Gent. Mag. 12 (1742). 319, opposite one of Smith's 
plates, and in Hutchinson's History of Cumberland 1. 83.] 




fhflTfBHRlt^ 



b 



VI. SMITH'S LETTER TO THE GENTLEMAN'S 
MAGAZINE, 1742. 

[For the author, see Maughan's Memoir, below, p. 57. As we learn 
from other letters of his (see, for instance, p. 30 of this same volume), 
he lived at Boothby, a couple of miles northeast of Brampton „ 
The first plate is from p. 318 ; the second from p. 529 ; and the 
third (p. 15) from p. 132. The description is from pp. 368—9.] 

The Explanation of the Runic Obelisk, 1 (see p. 318) 
by George Smith, Esq; 

SIR, 
That part of Cumberland which lies beyond the Banks 
of the River Eden, Northwards, having been often 
exposed to the Waste of War, and the People ruined 
by almost continual Depredations ; the Barenness of 
it seems rather to proceed from the Neglect of Cul- 
ture than the natural Poverty of the Soil. Within 
the Embraces of the Frontier Mountains of this Tract 
lies Beu-Castle Church, on a Rivulet called Kirk-beck, 
near an old ruined Castle of the Proprietors of that 
Part of the Country before the Conquest ; and both 
Church and Castle are built on the Remains of a 
large Roman Fort. Opposite to the Church Porch, 
at a few Yards Distance, stands the Obelisk, of one 
entire Stone, 2 15 Foot and a half high, springing 
through an Octagon Pedestal, whose Sides were 
alternately equal. 'Tis nearly the Frustum of a Square 
Pyramid, each Side being 2 Foot broad 3 at Bottom, 
and one Foot and a half at Top, wherein a [369] Cross 4 
was fixed, which has been demolished long ago, by 
popular Frenzy and Enthusiasm ; and probably its 
Situation in these unfrequented Desarts has preserved 
the Remainder from their Fury. 

In the Bottom and Top Divisions, of the North 
Side, (see p. 318) are cut Vine -Trees with Clusters of 

[12] 



Smith's Letter, 1742 



13 



The North and Weft Pro/peas of the famous Runic Obtli/k at Bcw- 
Caftle in Cumberland. Taken by G. Smith. 



A perfpeflive Vitw 
Top, wherein the Crofs 
was fat, from an Ele- 

varionofiheocuiar Ho 
rizon 



The PnfpeBt of the 
South and EaA 
Sida viil be m 
our next. 



See the Runic Infcriftlm 
on the mjl Side, p. 132. 




(Text continued on p. 15.) 



b2 



14 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 



• Scmh and Eaft ProfptSs of the famous Runic ObeHsk at '. 
Caftfe in Cuaiberiaad. -SyC Smith, 174s. 



MKWfWHFf 





Smith's Letter, IJ42 



15 



We jnfert the following In- 
script ion, not doubt- 
ing that it will fall into the 
Hands cf fome Gentleman 
who understands the Lan- 
guage, and will pleafe to 
give us the Explication. 
It is taken from a very cu- 
rious ObeliiJc, erefted for 
a Monument in a Church' 
yard in Cumberland. 



Grapes in Demi-relievo, probably the Danish Symbol 
of Fertility, as Amathea's Horn was amongst the Greeks. 

In a Fillet above the under Vine are these Charac- 
ters fairly legible [see fillet on the north side, p. 13], 
which the learned Bishop Nicolson expounds Ryn- 
buru, and thinks that it intimates the Expulsion of 
the magical Runce, and their Accession to Christianity. 
But if I may be allowed to dissent from so great a 
Name, I had rather believe it to 
be a Sepulchral Monument of one 
of the Danish Kings slain in Battle, 
and the Reading I think will sup- 
port my Conjecture. 

For there is no Instance of any 
Nation using the 1st Character 
for an R, nor do I remember to 
have seen it so explained in all 
the numerous Runic Alphabets 
of Olaus Wormius, but the Danes 
about the Sinus Codanus, 1 made 
Use of it for K. 2 Besides the R 
is Roman wherever it occurs, in 
this and other Inscriptions on this 
Monument. The 2d is the Mas- 
sagetic 3 U a People about the 
Tanais* The next two Letters 
are wrong copy'd by the Bishop, 
the first is a Q, or Scythian N, 
the other an I ; the 4 following 
are buru plain ; and the last is 

K Final, for the Initial and Final K differing in their 
Form was common in those Nations, as the Initial and 
Final M to the Hebrews. Upon the whole I read it 
Kuniburuk, which in the old Danish Language imports 
Sepulchrum Regis. And the checquer Work included 



Iff 

nt, 

frwtra 
mimiml 

mmm 



mm 



m 



1 6 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

betwixt the two magical Knots (the Scythian Method 
of embellishing Funeral Monuments) very much corrob- 
orates my Opinion. 

However I so far agree with the Bp that it may 
also seem to have been designed for a standing 
Monument of Conversion to Christianity, which might 
have happen'd on the Loss of their King, and each 
mutually celebrated by it. 

For Buchanan 1 tells us, that in the Reign of Donald- 
us (the Sixth 2 of that Name) the Danes having wasted 
Northumberland, were met and engag'd by the united 
Troops of England and Scotland, with such Uncer- 
tainty of Victory, that both Sides were equally glad 
of Peace, by which the Danes obliged themselves to 
embrace Christianity. This, therefore, was a very 
proper Monument for so great a Change, and the 
Figure on the West Side greatly contributes to favour 
this Conjecture, as I shall shew in my next Disser- 
tation 3 on the three other Sides. This Transaction 
happened about 850 Years ago, and none believe the 
Obelisk to be older than 900. 4 

That the Monument is Danish appears incontestable 
from the Characters ; Scotish and Pictish Monuments 
having nothing but Hieroglyphick's, and the Danish 
both ; and, excepting Bride-Kirk 5 Font, it appears to 
be the only Monument of that Nation left in Britain. 

SIR, 
Your very humble Servant, 
GEO. SMITH. 



VII. ARMSTRONG'S PLATE, 1775. 

[This plate is found in the London Magazine for August, 1775 
(44. 388). From references in other places (for example, Gough's 
edition of Camden's Britannia, 1806, 3. 455, note 1), we learn that 
the plate was furnished by Captain Armstrong, a native of Bew- 
castle parish, who had served in the army as private, corporal, 
sergeant, and finally captain, retiring about 1764 (see Hutchinson's 
Hist. County Cumberland, 1794, 1. 80). Whether the accompanying 
description is by his hand I have no means of knowing. At the bot- 
tom of the plate stands: ' Publish'd by R. Baldwin Sep? i B } 1775.'] 

An Account of a curious OBELISK, of one Stone, stand- 
ing in the Church Yard of Bewcastle, in the North East 
Part of Cumberland, about 16 Miles from Carlisle. 
(Illustrated with an elegant Engraving.) 

What is here represented is 15 feet high * ; besides 
there has been on the top a cross, 2 now broken off, 
part of which may be seen as a grave stone in the 
same church yard. The faces of the obelisk are not 
quite similar, but the 1st and 2d, and the 3d and 4th 
agree. The figures and carving are very fair, but 
the inscription which has been on the west face, is 
not legible. At the top of that face is a figure with 
a mitre ; below that, another in priests habit ; then 
was the inscription, and below that, the figure of a 
man with a bird, said to be St. Peter and the cock. 
On the 2d or south face has been a dial, 3 and many 
other ornaments. The north face has much rich carv- 
ing, and the chequers seem to point out the arms 
of some person, and probably to the name of Graham, 
that being part of their arms, and the present Mr. 
Graham of Netherby is lord of that manor, and the 
lawful heir of the last Lord Viscount Preston. On 
the east face is a running stem of a vine, with foxes 4 
or monkeys eating the grapes. 

[17] 



18 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

North. Weft. South. 



Eafl 




' kA Curious Ojzelisx m£ewcafl-7e Churrh Yard 



(Text continued on p. 19.) 



Armstrong's Plate, iyjj 19 

The whole carving has been done in a masterly 
manner, and beyond comparison it is the richest 
ornamented obelisk of one stone now in Britain : but 
by whom or on what account it was erected, there 
is not the least to be learned from history. 

Cambden, and other historians, mention this stone, 
though none of them ever saw it. They would gladly 
have it to be Roman, but the figures and cross plainly 
speak it to be Christian, and very likely it was erected 
as a monument near the burial place of the chief man 
of that place, as the remains of a very large castle 
are close by it. 



VIII. HUTCHINSON'S HISTORY OF CUMBER- 
LAND, 1794. 

[The following extract is taken from Hutchinson's History of the 
County of Cumberland 1. 85—87. The plate is much reduced from 
the original opposite p. 80.] 




Mm : 



A friend, at our instance, before we had seen this 
monument, took some pains to gain the inscription 
on the north side, in a manner we have often prac- 
tised with success, by oiling the stone and pressing in 
wax, and then with printer's ink, taking upon paper the 
character : it was very confused and imperfect, but ap- 
peared much in this form, 1 fBfKvVl-K^"BhRV\^ 
of which, we confess, we are not able to give a 

[20] 



Hutchinson's History, 1794 21 

probable reading. The ornaments of knots, flowers, 
and grapes, evidently appear to be the effect of the 
sculptor's fancy 1 ; and we think it would be extending 
a desire of giving extraordinary import to works of 
antiquity, to suppose they were intended to carry 
any emblematical meaning : they are similar to the 
ornaments of the capitals and fillets in Gothic struct- 
ures of the eleventh century, 2 or near that time, and 
no one yet presumed to assert they were to be con- 
strued as hieroglyphics. Should we not attempt to 
object to the readings of the inscription on the north 
fillet, and admit it might imply that the ground was 
famous for royal sepulture ; in our apprehension it 
doth not advance the antiquity of the monument the 
least. The inscription itself is uncertain ; for the 
prelate and Mr. Smith took it variously, and the wax 
impression varied from both, and such, we conceive, 
would be most accurate ; the copies taken by the eye 
being subject to the effects of light and shade. 

Let us examine the work, and perhaps we may 
draw from thence a more convincing argument. The 
south front is decorated in the upper compartment 
with a [86] knot, the next division has something like 
the figure of a pomegranet, 3 from whence issue 
branches of fruit and foliage, the third has a knot, 
the fourth branches of fruit and flowers, beneath which 
is a fillet with an inscription, copied thus by Mr. Smith, 
but now appearing irrecoverable by any device : Here 
is reproduced, but inexactly, the inscription on the 
left on page 14, above. Beneath this, in the lowest 
compartment, is a knot. The east front is one entire 
running branch of foliage flowers and fruit, ornament- 
ed with birds and uncouth animals in the old Gothic 
stile. The crown of the pillar is mortaised to receive 
the foot of the cross. 4 The north side has, in the 



22 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

upper compartment, foliage and fruit, in the next a 
knot, in a large space next succeeds the chequy, then 
a knot, beneath which, is the fillet with the inscrip- 
tion, treated of by the Prelate and Mr. Smith. The 
west front is the most ornamented, having the follow- 
ing sculptures: in the lowest compartment, well 
relieved, is the effigies 1 of a person of some dignity, 
in a long robe to the feet, but without any dress or 
ornament on the head: it is greatly similar to the 
chief figure on the north front of Bridekirk font, as 
to the fashion of the garment ; on a pedestal, against 
which this figure leans, is a bird, which, we conceive, 
is the raffen, or raven, the ensignia of the Danish 
standard. This figure seems designed to represent 
the personage for whom the monument was erected ; 
and though accompanied with the raffen, bears no 
other marks of royal dignity. Above this figure is a 
long inscription, which has consisted of nine lines ; 
Mr. Smith delineates the first three letters thus ; I H N. 
The S, in many old inscriptions, is formed like an 
inverted Z, and sometimes that letter, in its proper 
form, is substituted. Late visitors, as well as we, 
have great doubt whether any such characters were 
ever legible. Great care was taken to copy the in- 
scription, as it now appears ; which may perhaps 
afford a new construction. Immediately above this 
inscription is the figure of a religious person, the 
garments descending to the feet, the head encircled 
with a nymbus, not now appearing radiated, but merely 
a circular rise of the stone ; the right hand is el- 
evated in a teaching posture, and the other hand 
holds a roll ; a fold of the garment was mistaken by 
Mr. Armstrong, (who drew the monument, and had it 
engraved, through regard to the parish where he was 
born,) for a string of beads. We conceive this figure 



Hutchinson's History, 1794 23 

[that of Christ] to represent St. Cuthbert, to whom 
the church, as Nicolson and Burn set forth, is ded- 
icated. The upper figures Mr. Armstrong represented 
like a mitred ecclesiastic ; but in that he was mani- 
festly mistaken, the effigies being that of the holy 
virgin with the babe. 1 There is no doubt that this 
was a place of sepulture, for on opening the ground 
on the east and west sides, above the depth of six 
feet, human bones were found of a large size, but 
much broken [8y] and disturbed, together with several 
pieces of rusty iron. The ground had been broken 
up before, by persons who either searched for treas- 
ure, or, like us, laboured with curiosity. 

Whether the chequers were designed or not for the 
arms of the family of Vaux, or de Vallibus, must be 
a matter of mere conjecture ; we are inclined to think 
that armorial bearings were not in use at the same 
time with the Runic characters. . . . The reason given 
in bishop Nicholson's letter, is applicable to our con- 
jectures on this monument, ' That the Danes were 
most numerous here, and least disturbed,' 2 which 
reconciles the mixture of Runic character in an in- 
scription of the eleventh century, as in such desert 
and little frequented tracks, that the character might 
remain familiar both to the founder and the sculptor : 
where the Danes continued longest and least disturbed, 
their importations would also continue unaffected by 
other modes, which were gaining acceptation and 
progress, in more frequented and better peopled 
situations. 



IX. HENRY HOWARD'S ACCOUNT, 1801. 

[The volume of Arch&ologia containing this (Vol. 14) was published 
in 1803, but the paper, ' Observations on Bridekirk Font and on the 
Runic Column at Bewcastle, in Cumberland, by Henry Howard, Esq. 
in a Letter to George Nayler, Esq. York Herald, F. A. S.,' was read 
May 14, 1801. The paper itself occupies pages 113— 118 (our portion 
pp. 117— 18), and the plate (considerably reduced) follows immediately. 

Henry Howard (1757— 1842), of Corby Castle, 4$ miles southeast 
of Carlisle, spent the most of his life as a country gentleman and 
antiquary. The monument to the memory of his first wife (d. 1789), 
in Wetheral church, is the theme of two of Wordsworth's sonnets, 
Nos. 39 and 40 of the Itinerary Poems of 1833.] 

Runic Column at Bewcastle. — Of this celebrated monu- 
ment I have seen several engravings, none of them 
accurate ; but I understand that Mr. de Cardonnel has 
published a faithful delineation ; which, however, I 
have not had an opportunity of seeing. I send you 
the vestiges of the inscriptions, the result of two days 
employment on the spot. 

The Runic Column, or Obelisk, stands a few feet 
from the church, within the precincts of an extensive 
Roman station, guarded by a double vallum. In one 
angle of this enclosure, a strong oblong building called 
Bueth Castle was raised at a later period, probably, 
from the form of the stones, out of the ruins of the 
Roman fort. The builder availed himself of the an- 
cient foss for two sides of his castle, and cut off the 
connexion with the remainder by a new foss. There 
is no account of this castle, which is situated in the 
wildest part of the borders, having been inhabited 
since the reign of Henry the second. The Obelisk 
is from the hand of a better artist than the Font at 
Bridekirk. It is quadrangular, of one entire grey free 
stone, inserted in a larger blue stone, which serves 
, [24] 



Fig. 2. 



4- 



WW 

'PFIMNH' 

nrafrw 

liHItttfRI! 

fllM'M 



i 



7< 



An 

-+- 

-e! 



*! 



Howard's Account, 1801 25 

as its base. The greater base 1 is 22 inches, diminish- 
ing to 21 ; the lesser 16 inches, and 12 only at the 
top : the shaft 14 feet high. To this a cross 2 appears 
to have been added, the socket of which is observ- 
able. It is unfortunate that the side of the Column 
containing two figures and the principal inscription, 
faces to the west, from which quarter the wind and 
rain are* most frequent. The lower figure seems to 
have been mutilated by accident or intent ; but the 
remainder seems to have suffered only by exposure 
to the weather. Some parts of [118] the inscription 
[d], probably owing to the stone being there softer, 
have been more affected than the rest. The third, 
fourth, and fifth lines, are the most perfect. Towards 
the lower part scarce anything is to be made out. 
On the whole, indeed, little more than the vestiges 
of this inscription remain ; the perpendicular parts of 
the letters are discernible, and have probably been 
deepened by the rain, but the horizontal and other 
parts, are nearly obliterated. In taking the inscrip- 
tion I followed the same plan as at Bridekirk, work- 
ing 3 the paper in with the finger, and afterwards 
following the finger at the edges of every part of the 
letters with the pencil, so that, in the paper I send, 
you have all that can be either seen or felt of this 
inscription. 

The north inscription of one line only [e], being 
completely sheltered by the church, has suffered very 
little injury from time ; and, I must say, that the 
difference observable in the engravings given to the 
public, must have arisen from want of attention and 
exactness. 

On the south side there is a fillet 4 like that to the 
north [f], but a few letters only can be made out, 
the rest are chipped off or worn away. 



26 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

I request you, my dear Sir, to present to the 
Society the original tracery of these inscriptions taken 
by me on the spot. 

I have the honour to remain, 

Your faithful humble servant, 

HENRY HOWARD. 

Corby Castle, Carlisle, 
April 16, 1801. 

[d] See PI. XXXIV. fig. 2. [e] Ibid. fig. 3. [f] Ibid. fig. 1 



X. LYSONS' MAGNA BRITANNIA, 1816. 

[The account of the Lysons (4. cxcix— cci) reposes largely upon 
Nicolson. Only a few sentences are here reproduced. The plate 
occupies two quarto pages, and is accordingly much reduced in our 
facsimile. The second N of the runic Cynnburug, on the north 
side, is imperfect, and resembles a vertical stroke, with a dot 
at the right.] 

Several very inaccurate figures of it have been 
published. It is of one stone, 14 feet 6 inches high. 
2o£ inches in width at the bottom, and 14$ inches at 
the top on the north and south sides ; and 22 inches 
at the bottom, and 16 at the top, on the east and 
west sides. At the top is a socket 8£ by 7! inches, 
in which no doubt a cross has formerly been fixed. 
. . . [cc] Over this is another figure sculptured in bas- 
relief, which, from the nimbus round the head, has 
been supposed to represent some saint ; but as he 
holds a roll (the sacred volumeri) in his left hand, and 
the right hand is elevated in the act of benediction, 
we should rather suppose it was intended for our 
Saviour, who is frequently so represented in ancient 
works of art. Immediately above this figure are some 
faint traces of another inscription of two lines ; and 
over this, a third sculpture in bas-relief, which is de- 
scribed by Bishop Nicolson as ' the effigies of the 
B. V. with the Babe in her arms, and both their 
heads encircled with glories.' This description, which 
several succeeding writers appear to have copied, 
without inspecting the original, is very erroneous. 
The female figure is so defaced that nothing more 
than the general outline can be distinguished ; what 
she holds in her left arm is much better preserved, 



28 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

and is evidently the holy lamb. 1 . . . Imme[cci]diately 
above the lowest knot on the south side was a Runic 
inscription 2 of one line, now so nearly obliterated, 
that except in a very favourable light, hardly a stroke 
can be distinctly made out. 





ni'.n i mi 

|| fM'R rin| i j 

,■ FlUfifni j 

. nfH Om j 




XI. MAUGHAN'S FIRST ACCOUNT, 1854. 

[According to my best information (for which I am indebted 
to Professor W. G. Collingwood ; Chancellor J. E. Prescott, Canon 
of Carlisle ; Rev. George Yorke, Rector of Bewcastle ; Rev. T. W. 
Willis, Vicar of Lanercost ; and Mr. John Maughan, of Maryport, 
Cumberland, nephew of the antiquary), Rev. John Maughan 
(pronounced Mawn, but locally now and then Maffan) was born 
at Lanercost Abbey Farm, April 18, 1806, and baptized at 
Lanercost Abbey, January 6, 1807. His grandfather, Nicholas 
Maughan, born in 1733, came to Lanercost from the County of 
Durham, and became the tenant of the Abbey Farm. He was 
married to Elizabeth Bowman, of Nether Denton, was churchward- 
en in 1789, and died May 14, 1798. He had a son John, the 
father of the antiquary, who was born at Lanercost in 1770, 
succeeded to the Abbey Farm, married Mary Moses, and died at 
Lanercost, April 28, 1830. The Rev. John Maughan, one of a 
family of thirteen children, was born as stated above, took bis 
degree of B. A. at Trinity College, Dublin, in 1830, was ordained by 
the Bishop of Chester in 1833, and became Curate of Melling, Liver- 
pool, in the same year. He was Rector of Bewcastle from 1836 to 
1873, built the present rectory in 1837, and married Mary Twenty- 
man at Carlisle, July 21, 1840. He died without issue November 13, 
1873, and was buried in the graveyard at Lanercost Abbey, next 
to his wife, who had died at Bewcastle Rectory, January 10, 1872, 
aged sixty-eight years. Besides his papers on the Maiden Way, from 
the second of which the following paragraphs are extracted, and the 
Memoir given below, he wrote many papers, chiefly on supposed 
Roman camps in North Cumberland, for the Cumberland and West- 
morland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, between its foun- 
dation in 1866 and his death in 1873. Considerable excerpts and 
adaptations from his Memoir were embodied in The History and 
Topography of the Counties of Cumberland and Westmorland, edited 
by William Whellan, i860. According to Collingwood, he was 
' a qualified medical man, a schoolmaster, magistrate, and farmer.' 

Elsewhere Collingwood says, apropos of certain supposed runes 
near Bewcastle (Early Sculptured Crosses, Shrines, and Monuments 
in the Present Diocese of Carlisle, Kendal, 1899, pp. 52—3): 
' Mr. Maughan had been for years the enthusiastic Runologist 



30 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

of the countryside, eagerly expounding the Bewcastle Cross, 
circulating among his parishioners the story here retold, talking 
to all and sundry about his theories on Petriana and place-names. 
In some other antiquarian matters he is known to have been 
deceived. It was on his authority that the Maiden Way north 
of Bewcastle was laid down in the Ordnance-map, with many 
forts, etc., which recent investigation has shown to be imaginary. 
(Compare his paper on " the Maiden Way," Archceological Journ- 
al, no. 41, with Transactions, C. & W. A. & A. Soc, vol. XV., 
part II., p. 344, etc.) There is reason to think that he was the victim, 
especially in his later years, of a series of practical jokes. Old 
roads, pavements, ruined forts (cottages) were found for him, by 
the zeal or roguery of his neighbors; and these runes are their crea- 
tion. They are not the work of a Runic scholar ; they were con- 
cocted by a clever Cumbrian who had read the Rector's papers, 
heard his talk, perhaps used his books, and, like his countrymen, 
laughed at enthusiasm and loved a joke.' 

The following paragraphs are from Archceological Journal 11 
(1854). 130—4. It is clear that Maughan was at this time inclined 
to date the cross after the death of Sweyn in 1014.] 

In the churchyard the Monolithic Obelisk, or shaft 
of an ancient cross, is still standing, but remains un- 
explained. I have recently cleared the inscribed parts 
from the moss with which they were thickly coated, 
but have not been able to decypher the characters 
in a satisfactory manner. The letters appear to be 
Anglo-Saxon Runes, and much the same as those on 
the Ruthwell monument in Dumfriesshire. On a fillet 

on the north side the follow- 
ing letters 1 are very legible. 
In the year 1685 these characters were somewhat 
differently read by Bishop Nicholson, and expounded 
by him to mean, ' Rynburn, the burial of the Runae,' 
or ' Ryeburn, Cemeterium, or Cadaverum Sepulchrum.' 
In the year 1742, an article appeared in the Gentle- 
man's Magazine communicated by Mr. Smith, who 
read it 'Kuniburuk, Sepulchrum Regis.' As however 
these interpretations appear to be based on an in- 



Maugharis First Account, 1SJ4 31 

correct copying of the letters, I would suggest another 
reading. I suppose the second letter to be a Runic 
Y ; and the penultimate letter to be a compound of 
OU ; and I would propose to read Kyneburoug. The 
word Cyne or Kin of the Saxons was synonymous 
with nation or people ; and the Anglo-Saxon byrig, 
byrg, burh, burg, buroug, &c, was the generic term 
for any place, large or small, which was fortified by 
walls or mounds. The fortifications of the continental 
Saxons, before their inroads on the Roman Empire, 
were mere earthworks, for in their half-nomadic state 
they had neither means nor motive for constructing 
any other. But their conquest and colonisation of 
the greater part of Roman Britain put them in pos- 
session of a more solid class of fortifications, such as 
this at Bewcastle. I would suggest, therefore, that 
these Runes may signify the burgh or fortified town 
of the nation or people who occupied this district. 
It is probable that this was in early times a place of 
some importance. In the reign [131] of Edward I., 
1279, J onn Swinburne obtained a fair and market to 
be held here. 

On a fillet on the south side appear to be the 
following characters. 1 What the first three may mean 

be the word DANEGELT. This term was first applied 
to a tribute of 30,000, or according to some writers, 
36,000 pounds (A. Sax.), raised in the year 1007 during 
the reign of Ethelred the Unready, to purchase a 
precarious peace from the Danes. It was also some- 
times used to designate taxes imposed on other extra- 
ordinary occasions. 

On the western side are three figures, which, as 
Bishop Nicholson says, ' evidently enough manifest the 



32 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

monument to be Christian.'(3) The highest may be, as the 
learned prelate suggested, the Blessed Virgin with the 
Babe in her arms. (4) The next is that of our Saviour 
with the glory round his head. In a compartment 
underneath this is the principal inscription, consisting 
of nine lines ; and underneath this is the figure of a 
man with a bird upon his hand, and in front of him 
a perch, which, in the absence of a better explana- 
tion, may possibly have been intended to represent 
Odin, or some Danish chieftain, and his dreaded raven : 
and we may suppose that he was placed at the bottom 
of the group to typify his conversion and subjection 
to the Redeemer, who was descended from the Blessed 
Virgin. The inscription appears to be as follows, so 
far as I have been able to trace the letters (see wood- 
cut, p. 132). The eighth and ninth lines are quite 
illegible. 

In the first line the three characters at the com- 
mencement probably form the monogram I H S, and 

(3) ' Camden's Britannia,' ed. by Gibson, vol. ii., p. 1028. 

(4) It must be admitted that this supposition is somewhat coun- 
tenanced by the fact that the Church of Bewcastle is dedicated to 
the Virgin. The representation, however, of these weather-worn 
sculptures, given by Lysons in his ' History of Cumberland,' p. 
cxcix, suggests the notion, that what has been supposed to be the 
Infant Saviour, may be the Agnus Dei, and it is so described by 
him. If this be correct, the figure must represent the Baptist, 1 and 
the two lines of characters, now defaced, under its feet, as shown in 
Lysons' plate, possibly comprised some mention of^ St. John. The 
figure at the base, as some have thought, most probably pour- 
trayed some person of note by whom this remarkable Christian 
monument was erected. The bird which he has taken off its perch, 
appears to be a hawk, 2 introduced, possibly, to mark his noble rank. 
In examining Lysons' plate, the best representation of the sculp- 
tures, hitherto published, attention is arrested by the introduc- 
tion of a vertical dial 3 on the south side, resembling those at Kirk 
dale and Bishopstone, described in this volume of the Journal, 
p. 60, the only examples of so early a date hitherto noticed.— Ed. 4 



Maugharis First Account, 1854 



33 



being placed [132] immediately under the figure of 
our Saviour, show that the monument is of a Christ- 
ian character ; the last letter being evidently the 
Runic S, and not an inverted Z, as supposed by 
Mr. Smith. 1 The third line begins with the letters 
PATR : but it appears uncertain whether they are 
intended for pater, 



IM 



ftlMIIIIN 




HINJK 

Miimhw 

Mil HUM 



or part of some such word as fiatria, Patrick, &c. ; 
or whether the first letter is not W, in which case 
the word will probably be WAETRO, the plural of 
waeter. In the sixth line we find the word SUENO, 
which, taken in connection with the word Danegelt, 
on the south side, may indicate the period, as well 
as the object, of the erection of the monument. In 
the reign of Ethelred the Unready, a terrible deed was 
done in England. With a view of providing against 
the treachery of those numerous Danish families 
(especially such as had been permitted by Alfred the 
Great to settle in Northumberland and East Anglia), 
who upon any threatened invasion, were ready to 



34 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

join their countrymen against those among whom 
they were allowed to reside, Ethelred, with a policy 
incident to weak princes, adopted the resolution of 
putting them to the sword throughout his dominions. 
On the 13th of Nov. 1002, in pursuance of secret in- 
structions sent by the king over the country, the in- 
habitants of every town and city rose, and murdered 
all the Danes, who were their neighbours, young and 
old, men, women, and children. Every Dane was 
killed, even to [133] Gunilda, the sister of the King 
of Denmark, who had been married to Earl Paling, a 
nobleman, and had embraced Christianity : she was 
first obliged to witness the murder of her husband 
and child, and then was killed herself. When Sueno, 
or Sweyn, the King of Denmark, sometimes styled 
the King of the Sea Kings, heard of this deed of 
blood, he swore he would have a great revenge. He 
raised an army and a mightier fleet of ships than 
ever yet sailed to England, and landing on the western 
coasts, near Exeter, went forward, laying England 
waste. Whereso[e]ver the invaders came, they made 
the Saxons prepare for them great feasts ; and when 
they had satisfied their appetite, and had drunk a 
curse to England, with wild rejoicings, they drew 
their swords, killed their Saxon entertainers, and con- 
tinued their march. For several years they carried on 
this war ; burning the crops, farm-houses, barns, mills, 
granaries, killing the labourers, causing famine and 
starvation, and leaving heaps of ruin and smoking 
ashes, where they had found thriving towns, hunting 
out every corner which had not been previously ran- 
sacked. Ethelred overwhelmed with such calamities, 
at length in the year 1007, agreed to pay the Danegelt 
to which I have before alluded. In the absence of 
accurate information, we may not unreasonably suppose 



Maugharis First Account, iSjj 35 

this obelisk to have been raised in commemoration 
of some of the important events of this period. Sweyn 
was afterwards welcomed by the English people as 
their Sovereign, but died suddenly in little more than 
a month after he was proclaimed King of England. 
Can this have been his burial-place ? (5) 

The first letter in the second line is distinctly legible, 
and undoubtedly U. I sometimes fancy, that by tak- 
ing the last imperfect letter of the preceding line, we 
may possibly obtain the word DUNSTANO. 1 Dunstan, 
however, was dead before the time already mentioned, 
and though he lived to place the crown upon the 
head of Ethelred, and may without impropriety be 
classed among the contemporaries of that period, yet 
as he died in 988, he cannot have taken any part in 
the events above mentioned. 

[A paragraph here is of the same purport as the second in Note 
14, below, p. 52.] 

[134] Uncertainty as to the forms of the other letters, 

prevents me from attempting further explanation of 

the inscription at present, but I am not without hope 

that in time I may become better satisfied as to the 

proper reading. 

(5) I may mention that a friend to whom I gave a copy of my read- 
ing of the inscription, suggests that in the second line is ' the word 
kisle, one of the cases of kisil, gravel.' It is difficult to conceive 
however, why such an immense stone should be brought from so 
great a distance and covered with the most elaborate sculpture, 
for the purpose of making any record about gravel. 



XII. HAIGH'S FIRST ACCOUNT, 1857. 

[The first part of Haigh's paper was read to the Newcastle 
Society March 2, 1856, and the second (concluding), April 2; it 
is clear that his main conclusions lay before Maughan when the 
latter composed his Memoir. Hence, though Haigh's paper was 
published in the same year as Maughan's, the former is here given 
precedence. 

Daniel Henry Haigh (pronounced Haig) was born August 7, 1819. 
He inherited a considerable fortune, and eventually became a Roman 
Catholic priest (April 8, 1848). He lived at Erdington, near Birming- 
ham, from 1848 to 1876, and died at Oscott, May 10,1879. 'Haigh's 
varied learning embraced Assyrian and Anglo-Saxon antiquities, 
numismatics, and Biblical archaeology. He was the chief authority 
in England on runic literature, and was of much assistance to 
Professor G. Stephens, who dedicated the English section of his 
work on " Runic Monuments " to him. The bulk of his literary 
work is preserved in the transactions of societies' {Diet. Nat. Biog.). 

The following paragraphs are taken from ' The Saxon Cross at 
Bewcastle,' in Archceologia JEliana, New Series, 1. 149—195. Much 
of the article is concerned with such subjects as the Ruth well and 
other crosses, other dials than that on the Bewcastle Cross, runic 
inscriptions on other monuments, Old English proper names, etc. 
The plate of runes is opposite page 192. 

In this same volume (p. vii) is the entry, under January, 1856 : 
' Dr. Charlton. 1 — On the Bewcastle Cross.'] 

[151] The monument now stands alone, but once, 
in all probability, there were two, one at the head, the 
other at the foot of the grave, as in the example 
which still remains at Penrith. 2 If so, the other has 
disappeared, yet it may be still in existence, if the 
conjecture which will be hazarded in the sequel be 
considered under all the circumstances probable. 

The cross, as we have already observed, is gone, 
but all record of it has not perished. It appears from 
a note in the handwriting of Mr. Camden 3 in his own 
copy of his Britannia (now in the Bodleian Library), 
that Lord William Howard sent it to Lord Arundel, 

[36] 



Haigh's First Account, i8jj 



37 



Bewcastle. 



t& 




w 






* West Side 




M1HJT1 

N 



m 



II hit ft h 



8>i» 



lfi» 



L 



Ml 

n 



South Side. 



Hot* Side. 

fliifrtlWRM 



MM 



nil IT If [t>5 



must 



(Text continued on p. 38.) 



38 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

and he to Mr. Camden. It had an inscription on the 
transverse limb, which Mr. Camden gives from an im- 
pression he had taken (Fig. 2), and the reading is 
clearly ricjes drihtn^:. Another copy supplies an ' s ' 
at the end of the second word. Lord William Howard 
had previously sent to Olaus Wormius a copy of an 
inscription on this monument, which the latter publish- 
ed in his Monumenta Danica. 1 In this copy the word 
rices is plain, drihtn.es very much blundered, and 
after these, quite plain, the word stioeth, 2 of which 
traces still remain on the top of the western face of 
the monument. 3 These, taken in connection with the 
former, give us a meaning which undoubtedly alludes 
to the cross, ricjes drihtn.es stkxeth. ' The Staff of the 
Mighty Lord.' Beneath, in an oblong compartment, 
is the effigy of St. John the Baptist, pointing with 
his right hand to the Holy Lamb, which rests on his 
left arm. This figure had been supposed to be the 
Blessed Virgin with the Infant Jesus. Mr. Lysons, 
however, corrected this error in part, representing as 
a lamb what had been supposed to be the Holy 
Child, but the figure [152] which holds it, has in his 
engraving the appearance of a female. It is, though 
in flowing robes, decidedly a male figure, and the 
face is bearded. Below it is an inscription in two 
lines of Runes (Fig. 3) 

* GESSUS 

CRISTTVS 
written above an arched recess in which is a majestic 
figure of our Blessed Lord, who holds in His left 
hand a scroll, and gives His blessing with His right, 
and stands upon the heads of swine. Then follows 
the long inscription of nine lines of Runes, com- 
memorating the personage to whom this monument 
was erected. (Fig. 4) 



Haigh's First Account, 1SJ7 39 

* THISSIGBEC 
UNSETTiEH 

W.ETREDEOM 
G^ERFLWOLD 
UjEFT^RBAR/E 

YMBCYNING 

ALCFRID^G 

ICEG^DHE 

OS VMSAWLVM 1 
Lastly, in another arched recess is a fine figure in 
profile, holding a hawk in his left hand, above a 
perch. This doubtless represents the king whose 
name is mentioned in the inscription above it. 

The eastern side of this monument presents a con- 
tinuous scroll with foliage and fruit, amidst which 
are a lion, two monsters, two birds and two squirrels 
feeding on the fruit. Above these doubtless there 
was an inscription, but the stone is too much broken 
on this side to show the trace of even a single letter. 
On the northern side we read distinctly, in Runic 
letters nearly six inches long (Fig. 5), the Holy Name 
^ gessu. Below this we have a scroll, then an in- 
scription (Fig. 6), oslaac ctning ; then a knot, another 
inscription (Fig.j), wilfrid 2 preaster ; an oblong space 
filled with chequers, a third inscription, read by the 
Rev. J. Maughan ctniwisi or cyniswid ; a second knot, 
a fourth inscription (Fig. 8), cyniburttg 3 ; and lastly, a 
double scroll. 

On the southern side, at the top, are the remains 
of the name cristus (Fig. 9), corresponding to gessu 
on the north. Below this is a knot, an inscription 
(Fig. 10), eanfljed cyngn ; a scroll, in the midst of which 
a dial is introduced, a second inscription (Fig. 11), 
ecgfrid cyning; another knot, a third inscription 
(Fig. 12), cyniburug cyngn ; another scroll, a fourth 



40 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

inscription (Fig. 13), oswu cyningelt, and a third 
knot. 

Such is the Bewcastle monument ; a monument 
interesting in many [153] respects ; as one to which 
we can assign a certain date, and which, therefore, 
is a material help to us in ascertaining the age of 
others of the same class, that at Ruthwell in partic- 
ular ; as an evidence of the state of the art of sculp- 
ture in the seventh century, the three figures on the 
west side being equal to any thing we have until 
the thirteenth * ; as a monument of our language almost 
the earliest we have ; as belonging to a class of 
monuments, the memorials of the kings of England 
before the Conquest, which have almost entirely dis- 
appeared ; and as such, especially interesting, because 
the king to whose memory it was raised, played a 
most important part in the history of his times. 

The inscriptions claim our first attention. They 
are written in the early Saxon dialect of Northumbria, 
except the names of our Blessed Lord, which have 
a Latin form, since it was only from missionaries to 
whom the Latin language was as their mother tongue 
that our forefathers learned His name ; and down to 
the latest period of their history they followed the 
same rule, as the Germans do still of adopting, with- 
out alteration, into their language, Latin proper names. 
The spelling of the name gessus is particularly inter- 
esting, for I believe this is the only monument on 
which it occurs. Throughout the Durham Ritual and 
the Northumbrian Gospels, we find instead of it, the 
word Hcelend ' Saviour.' The initial g has the power 
of y, and the double s is probably not a false spell- 
ing since it occurs twice. 

The long inscription resolves itself into three coup- 
lets of alliterative verse ; thus, 



Haigh's First Account, iSjy 41 

This sigbecun This beacon of honour (4) 

Settae Hwaetred set Hwaetred 

Eom gaer f[e]lwoldu in the year of the great 

pestilence 
/Eftaer barae after the ruler 

Ymb cyning Alcfridae after King Alcfrid 

Gicegaed heosum sawlum pray for their souls 
I have supposed the omission of a letter, e, between 
/ and I. Fel, as a prefix, has the sense of ' much ' 
or ' many.' Woldu I take to be an adjective, derived, 
as well as wdl, a pestilence, from the same root as 
weallan ' to burn or boil,' and wyllan ' to make to 
burn or boil,' (just as fold, a flat surface, is derived 
from feallan k to fall,' and fyllan to make to fall), and 
therefore to have the sense of ' pestilential.' It does 
not, however, occur in the glossaries, having prob- 
ably fallen into disuse. The termination in u would 
not have occurred at a later period, but the Durham 
Ritual shows us that the declension of nouns and 
adjectives, and the conjugation of verbs, in the early 
Northumbrian dialect, dif[i54]fered in many respects 
from the later forms of the language on which our 
modern grammars are founded. This Ritual supplies 
us with many instances of adjectives ending in 
(which, as will be seen later, is the equivalent of u 
on these monuments) in the oblique cases ; as, for 
instance, in ceastre gihalgado, 1 'in civitate sanctificata,' 
in eco wuldur ' in aeterna gloria.' That there may, how- 
ever, have been a noun woldufo) and that this may 
have been the ancient form of wdl is not impossible, 
since from the verb swelan ' to burn ' we have not 

4 Sig implies triumph. In composition it seems to imply special 
honour. Beg is a bracelet, which any one might bear, but Sigbeg 
is a crown. 

5 Still I feel inclined to regard it as originally a participle, even 
if it did become a noun, just as fold and bold and other similar words, 
now nouns, seem to have been past participles. 



42 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

only swol but also swoluth and swoleth, heat, fever, or 
pestilence, and from stcelan, to place, we have steald 
as well as steal, a station, place or abode. If it were 
so, I should read, without any alteration of the sense, 
' in the year of the great pestilence.' I have read 
the letters l and w as they are in the rubbing with 
which I was furnished by the Rev. J. Maughan. If 
I could suppose that marks had been obliterated which 
would change these letters into ^(6) and b, I should 
propose another reading, eom gcsrfce boldu ' also carved 
this building,' supposing gcerfce the ancient form of 
cearf, from ceorfan to carve, and boldu, a building, the 
ancient form of bold. Verbs of the strong or complex 
order, to which ceorfan belongs, did not in later times 
add a syllable in the third person singular of the past 
tense, but the Durham Ritual gives us an example in 
the word ahofe 1 ' erexif which shows that in early 
times they did ; and we have other examples of nouns 
ending in u, which dropped this syllable in later 
times. The rules of alliteration rendered necessary 
the use of gicegced (a word which under a slightly 
different form, gicegath, 2 occurs in the Durham Ritual) 
instead of the more usual gibiddced. Heosum is another 
obsolete word, 3 the dative plural regularly formed from 
the possessive pronoun ' heora,'' their. I can find no 
trace of this word elsewhere, the indeclinable hiora* 
invariably occurring in the Durham Ritual ; but as 
in modern German the possessive pronouns of the 
third person are declinable, equally with those of the 
first and second, I think it not improbable that the 
same might be the case with the early Saxon lan- 
guage, and that the disuse of the oblique cases might 
be the effect of Latin influence. . . . 

8 Mr. Howard's representation of this letter in the Archaeolo- 
gia (Vol. XIV) seems to give this letter M. 



Haigh's First Account, i<Sj7 43 

[162] It is most probable that he [Alcfridj died in 
the [163] year 664 ; and in the pestilence of that year, 
to which so many persons of historical celebrity fell 
victims, we have the possible cause of his death. 
This monument marks the place of his burial, and 
its epitaph confirms the conclusion I had arrived at 
before I had an opportunity of reading it, and tells 
us the year of his death. Whilst yet this inscription 
remained a mystery, the tradition of the country de- 
clared that a king was buried at Bewcastle, and the 
confirmation of this tradition by the inscription (now, 
it is hoped, correctly read), is a proof, in addition to 
the many we have from other sources, that the tra- 
ditions of the people, in remote districts where, without 
thought of change, the same families continue to 
occupy the homesteads their fathers did before them, 
are founded in truth. Alcfrid is the king of whose 
burial this tradition has preserved the recollection, and 
he died in the year of the great pestilence, a. d. 664 

CYNIBURUG. — This name occurs upon the north 
and south sides ; and in the latter instance with the 
addition of some letters which we have read ctngn ; 
but, as the character which stands for nq is very like 
that for oe, it is possible that these letters may ex- 
press cuoen or cwoen ' queen. ' If, however, they be 
really as we have read them, we must suppose them 
an abbreviation of ctningin, 1 i. e. cyning with the usual 
female termination in, equivalent to the modern Ger- 
man word Koniginn. The signification is the same. 
This illustrious lady, the wife of Alcfrid, has been 
already mentioned. She was one of the daughters 
of King Penda, and was united to Alcfrid before the 
year 653, yet soon after her marriage persuaded him 
to live in continence with her, as a brother with a 
sister, being filled with the desire of devoting herself 

d 



44 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

exclusively to a religious life. Whilst her husband 
lived, her court more resembled a monastery than a 
palace, for she had collected around her many young 
females of noble as well as of plebeian rank, who 
regarded her as their spiritual mother. In the year 
664 she and her younger sister Cyniswid appear as 
witnesses to the foundation charter of Peterborough 
Minster, along with St. Wilfrid, then on his journey 
to France for consecration : so that it is probable her 
husband was already dead. Soon after this she ob- 
tained from her brother Wulfhere a grant of land at 
the place which is now called Caistor, and there she 
founded a monastery of which she was the first ab- 
bess, and her sisters Cyniswid and Cynithryth her 
successors. The year of her death is not recorded, 
but the youngest of her sisters, Cynithryth, was 
abbess in the year of St. Wilfrid's death, a. d. 709. Her 
character is thus briefly summed up by her biogra- 
pher : ' She was compassionate to the poor, a tender 
mother to the afflicted, [164] and was constantly ex- 
citing to works of mercy the Kings her brothers,' 
(i. e. Peada, Wulfhere, and Ethelred). I am informed 
that the Rev. J. Maughan has traced letters on the 
third slip of the north side, which he thinks may ex- 
press the name of Cyniwisi or Cyniswid. 1 I certainly 
did not observe any letters myself in the place, though 
I examined it carefully ; but if there be really any 
traces of such an inscription there, I should think the 
latter name the more probable reading. . . . 

[166] The long inscription, that of two lines above 
it, the single line on the south side, and another on 
the north, were all that had hitherto been noticed. 
A suspicion crossed my mind, whilst engaged in 
deciphering these, that there must be some letters in 
the space above the head of St. John the Baptist,, 



Haigh's First Account, i8jj 45 

and further, that the reason why the northern and 
southern sides are broken up into compartments, in- 
stead of being filled with a continuous ornament as 
the eastern side is, must be, that spaces might be 
left for inscriptions. On this account, and because I 
felt the great need of scrupulous accuracy in publish- 
ing a reading of so important a monument of our 
language as the long inscription is, I took advantage 
of an opportunity which a journey into the north 
afforded me, and extended it to Bewcastle, and the 
discovery of these inscriptions was the result — a re- 
sult far exceeding anything I had anticipated. 

Thus, as in a Saxon charter after the act of dona- 
tion we have the names of the witnesses thereto in 
the order of their rank, so here in the funeral monu- 
ment of king Alcfrid, after his epitaph, we have the 
names of those who we may believe assisted at his 
obsequies, his father Oswiu, his mother-in-law Eanflsed, 
his widow Cyniburug, and her sister Cyniswid, his 
uncle Oslaac, his brother Ecgfrid, and his chaplain 
Wilfrid, bishop elect of York * ; and above them all 
the holy name of Jesus. . . . 

[173] Fortunately, the history of the period enables 
us, almost with certainty, to determine the author of 
this poem [The Dream of the Rood], for there was but 
one person then living to whom it can be ascribed. 
For reasons which will appear in the sequel, I believe 
this monument, and that at Bewcastle, to be of the 
same age, and the work of the same hand, and the 
latter must have been erected a. d. 664 or 5. Now this 
was precisely the period at which Caedmon, first of 
all the English nation, began to compose religious 
poems, in the monastery of the Abbess Hilda. ... As 
then what is related of his inspiration (20) must have 

20 Bede's Eccl. Hist., book iv., cap. 24. 

d2 



46 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

taken place about this time, for the monastery of 
St. Hilda was founded in the year 655, are we not 
justified in regarding the lines upon the Ruthwell 
cross as fragments of a lost poem of his, 1 a poem, 
however, which a later poet in the tenth century 
undertook to modernize and adapt to the taste of his 
own times, as Dryden did with some of the poems 
of Chaucer ? I submit to the judgment of others this 
conjecture, based upon these grounds, viz. that on 
this monument, erected about a. d. 665, we have frag- 
ments of a religious poem of very high character, and 
that there was but one man living in England at the 
time worthy to be named as a religious poet, and 
that was Caedmon. 

In proceeding to notice the sculptured decorations 
of these two monuments, our attention is first arrested 
by the mutilated delineation of the crucifixion on that 
at Ruthwell, and this because M. Didron and others 
are of opinion that representations of this subject do 
not, or very rarely, occur before the tenth century. 2 
Here, however, we find it on a monument to which 
we can certainly assign an earlier date, (the seventh 
century), and there are several other examples on 
monuments which we have good reason to suppose 
belong to the seventh or eighth centuries. In the 
walls of the church of Kirkdale, in Yorkshire, built 
out of the ruins of St. Gregory's monastery (which I 
conceive to have been that of Laestingaeu) are three 
crosses, one of which is entirely filled by a very rude 
crucifixion. On another found at Rothbury, and now 
in the Museum of the Society, the image of Our 
Saviour crucified fills the head of the cross, as on 
the ruder example at Kirkdale. The curious frag- 
ments of the cross at Alnwick, (from Woden's Church, 
Alnmouth), deserve special notice here, because they 



Haigh's First Account, iSjj 47 

and the Ruthwell cross mutually illustrate each other. 
The position of the crucifixion on the cross [174] at 
Ruthwell shews what was probably the relation of 
the fragments at Alnwick to the cross of which they 
formed a part ; and the carving on the latter, being 
in better preservation than that on the former, shews 
what was its general design ; viz. Our Saviour ex- 
tended on the cross, (not depending), the sun and 
moon above, below apparently the two thieves, and 
lower still two executioners. Very similar in design 
to these is the crucifixion represented on one of the 
crosses at Aycliffe, (of which by the kindness of 
W. H. D. Longstaffe, Esq., I am enabled to give a 
representation), where we have the two executioners 
only, without the thieves. Not to mention other 
examples on crosses, the west front of the little church 
of Headbourne Worthy, near Winchester, is nearly 
filled by a very large crucifix. . . . [175] At Romsey 
. . . there still remains, quite perfect, a similar cruci- 
fix on the external wall of the south transept. . . . 

The three figures on the cross at Bewcastle are 
very superior in dignity and grace to any thing I 
have ever observed, even of Norman art, and the 
same may be said of those on the Ruthwell monu- 
ment. 1 Two of them, St. John the Baptist holding 
the Holy Lamb, and Our Blessed Saviour trampling 
on the heads of demons personified by swine, are 
nearly the same on each monument, the differences 
of treatment being very slight. . . . 

[176] The scroll-work on the eastern side of the 
Bewcastle monument, and on the two sides of that 
at Ruthwell, is identical in design, and differs very 
much from that which is found on other Saxon crosses. 
In fact I know of nothing like it except small portions 
on a fragment of a cross in the York Museum, on 



48 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

another fragment preserved in Jarrow church, and on 
a cross at Hexham. This resemblance, and that already 
noticed, in the style of the carving of the imagery, 
convince me that the two crosses are the work of 
the same artist or artists, (if we suppose that then, 
as is the case now-a-days, one who was competent 
to execute statuary left the carving of flowers and 
mere ornaments to less skilful hands), and, therefore, 
that the date of the one cannot be much later than 
that of the other ; nay, I feel inclined to go farther 
than this, and to hazard the conjecture that the two 
once formed the same monument, one at the head 
and the other at the foot 1 of the grave. Believing, 
as I do, that all these ancient crosses are sepulchral 
monuments, the absence of an epitaph at Ruthwell, 
on the lower stone at least, convinces me that some- 
thing is wanting to make the monument complete. The 
inscriptions on its fronts are Latin antiphons, allusive 
to the subjects pourtrayed thereon, and those on its 
sides English verses descriptive of the Passion. In 
such a company a memorial inscription would have 
seemed incongruous. Something seems wanting to 
the completeness of the monument, and that is supplied 
by the cross at Bewcastle, where we find an inscrip- 
tion to the memory of king Alcfrid, and the names 
of other persons of his family. The verification of 
the Bewcastle traditions disposes me the more readily 
to credit that which tells us that the Ruthwell cross 
came thither by^ sea, and was cast on the shore by 
shipwreck. If this be really true, whence did it come ? 
Most probably from Cumberland 2 ; carried off, perhaps, 
on account of its beauty, by an army of Danes or 
Scots, and cast upon the shore of the Solway by a 
sudden storm. 

Before I thought of the connection between these 



Haigtis First Account, iSjj 49 

two crosses, it occurred to me that the reason why 
St. John the Baptist was introduced upon that at 
Bewcastle might be, that he was the patron saint of 
King [177] Alcfrid, and this seemed to clear up a 
difficulty which I had felt for some years on another 
point of antiquarian research. At Barnack, in Nor- 
thamptonshire, three miles from Stamford, there is a 
church the tower of which, presenting on three sides 
scrolls with birds, and windows filled with tracery of 
interlacing knotwork, is certainly a work of the seventh 
century, and one which I always regarded as a relic 
of the monastery built by St. Wilfrid in this neighbor- 
hood on land granted to him by Alcfrid. But we 
know that St. Wilfrid's monasteries were all dedicated 
to St. Peter and St. Andrew (22) ; and how was the 
supposition that Barnack is St. Wilfrid's work to be 
reconciled with its dedication to St. John the Baptist ? 
Very easily, if St. John the Baptist were indeed the 
patron of Alcfrid. And if this were so, then his ap- 
pearance on the Ruthwell cross adds to the prob- 
ability that it belonged to the monument erected in 
his honour at Bewcastle : and that monument, we may 
suppose, consisted of two crosses, one at the head, 
the other at the foot of the grave, both presenting 
the image of our Blessed Lord, and of Alcfrid's patron 
saint ; one devoted to sacred imagery and inscriptions 
calculated for the edification of the beholder, the 
other presenting his portraiture and an inscription to 
his memory. It is even possible that the inscription 
upon the upper stone at Ruthwell may have contained 
his name. The letters which remain are m& gisoe. 

22 Eddi, chap, liv., records a vision (a. D. 705), in which St. Wil- 
frid is reproached for having done this, and having neglected to 
build one in honour of the Blessed Virgin, and four years of life 
are granted him to supply this omission. 



50 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

Of these giscle is evidently the beginning of a word 
such as gesceapan, to form or shape, gesceadan, to 
divide or separate, or gescea, sobbing, and the rest 
may be the ending of the word Alcfridce. If any other 
letters could be traced confirming this conjecture, I 
should regard this inscription as a sort of postscript 
to that on the other cross. Nor would such a sup- 
position militate against what I have said above of 
the incongruity of a memorial inscription with such 
as the rest of those upon this monument : for the 
lower stone on which they occur is evidently complete 
in itself, and as evidently the addition of the upper 
stone was an afterthought, for which the wish to add 
such an inscription as this might easily account, and 
which I cannot but think detracts from the beauty of 
the monument by destroying its unity. 



XIII. MAUGHAN'S SECOND ACCOUNT, 1857. 

[This is taken from the rare pamphlet entitled, A Memoir on 
the Roman Station and Runic Cross at Bewcastle. with an Appendix 
on the Roman Inscription on Caeme Craig, and the Runic Inscription 
in Carlisle Cathedral, London, Carlisle, Brampton, and Newcastle, 
1857. The first of these papers occupies pages 3—9; the first paper 
in the Appendix, 39—42 ; the second, referring to the so-called 
Dolfin runes, 43—44. The essay with which we are concerned falls 
into two parts — ' Runic Cross in Bewcastle Churchyard ' and ' Mr. 
Haigh's Version ' — occupying pages 10—30 and 31— 38 respectively. 
As the footnotes are numbered consecutively throughout the 
pamphlet, the first one in our part is No. 14.] 



RUNIC CROSS IN BEWCASTLE CHURCHYARD. 

Stones in the form of a cross, both plain and sculp- 
tured, have been reared by our forefathers at different 
remote periods, and for a variety of purposes, 1 and 
hence the history of such crosses becomes a subject 
of investigation replete with the deepest interest. 
Some of these crosses were simply wayside crosses, 
being frequently only a small rude square or oblong 
stone with a small cross cut on the face of it. These, 
besides being a great resort for beggars, were places 
where the corpse was allowed to stand for a short 
period when passing to its last place of rest, in order 
that a brief prayer might be offered for the soul of 
the departed. The pious of former days seldom 
passed these crosses without bowing or kneeling, 
and offering up their short and devout ejaculations. 
Crosses were also generally erected wherever a 
market was held, under the impression, perhaps, as 
some suppose, that the visible emblem of our re- 

[51] 



52 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

demption might influence the minds of the traders to- 
wards honesty and fair dealing, and hence we fre- 
quently find the remains of a cross near ancient re- 
ligious establishments, as for instance at Lanercost, 
because at such places a market 1 was almost invari- 
ably held, often even immediately after the celebration 
of divine service on the Sabbath. Some of these 
stones or crosses were erected near the shores, and 
served as beacons or landmarks ; — others were placed 
as sentinels or guardians of public springs and wells ; 
others denoted the place where great battles had been 
fought and won, and where other important events 
had occurred, such as the celebrated Percy and Nev- 
ille crosses ; others denoted a place of sanctuary, 
where criminals, however guilty, might crave and 
obtain the protection of the Church ; while others 
were placed in churchyards to impress the feelings, 
and increase the ardour of public devotion. The 
most interesting of this class are those which have 
been erected to denote the burial-place of some im- 
portant personage, and of these the cross in the 
churchyard at Bewcastle may be justly considered 
as one of the most remarkable specimens.(i4) 

(14) This pillar, which may be properly classed among the most 
celebrated of archaeological monuments, is nearly the frustum of a 
square pyramid, measuring 22 inches by 21 at the base, and taper- 
ing to 14 inches by 13 at the top of the shaft, being 14^ feet high 
above its pedestal. The pillar has been fixed with lead in a shallow 
cavity which has been cut on the crown of a nearly cubical block of 
stone 4 feet square, and 3 ft. 9 in. high ; which stone is now sunk 
about 3 feet into the ground, and has been tooled off at the upper 
corners so as to assume the appearance of an unequal-sided octagon. 
On the top of the pillar was formerly placed a small cross, which has 
been lost for a considerable period, and hence the pillar is now merely 
an obelisk. 2 

The traditions of the district say that a king was buried here, 
and also point out the locality where the shaft of the pillar was 



Maugharis Second Account, /Sjj 53 

Drawings of the north and west sides of this mon- 
ument appeared in the ' Gentleman's Magazine ' in 
1742, p. 317. 1 Captain Armstrong, a surveyor of land, 
who was born at Lowgrange, about a mile from the 
monument, is said to [11] have published an engraving 2 
of it, out of regard to his native place. A facsimile 
of the chief inscription 3 was communicated to the 
Society of Antiquaries in 1801 by the late and very 
learned Henry Howard, Esq., of Corby Castle, (see 
Archaeologia, vol. 14, p. 118,) and Cardonnell is said 

procured ; and the traditions are probably correct in both respects. 
On an extensive, and still unenclosed waste, called White Lyne 
Common, about five miles from Bewcastle Church, is a long ridge 
of rocks called the Langbar. About the centre of this ridge a stone 
is now lying on the surface of the ground, which is nearly fifteen 
feet in length, and which is the very counterpart of the Bewcastle 
obelisk in its rude and undressed state. It is evidently the relic 
of a stone which has been split at some distant period into two equal 
parts, the marks of the wedges used in the operation being still dis- 
tinctly traceable, and the side, which, from its present position, may 
be called the western, apparently much fresher than the other sides, 
and not covered with so thick a coat of grey moss ; as if it had been 
exposed to the effects of the weather for a shorter period of time. 
The obelisk is a peculiar species of rock ; a very hard, gritty, and 
durable white freestone, with rather a yellow tinge, thickly covered 
with spots of a grey hue ; precisely such as is found at the Langbar, 
and the adjacent rocks on the south side of the White Lyne river. 
A careful comparison of some fragments of the obelisk with other 
fragments from the Langbar stone, shows them to be unquestion- 
ably twins from one and the same parent. 

To this supposed and traditional origin of the obelisk it may 
possibly be objected, that it would be almost impossible to convey 
such an immense block of stone from such a hilly and now roadless 
district. This objection, however, is much diminished, if we bear 
in mind that the old Roman road called the Maiden Way passed near 
both its present and its supposed original site, which road would 
probably be in good order at the period when the stone was brought; 
and that there was an easy and gradual incline across the moor from 
the Langbar to the Maiden Way; affording facilities for its con- 
veyance to this road. 



54 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

by Mr. Howard to have published a good represent- 
ation of the cross. 1 I have not been able to procure 
a sight of this representation, but, through the kind- 
ness of P. H. Howard, Esq., I have seen a drawing 
in water-colours, representing the four sides of the 
monument, by Miss Ann Cardonnell, which was sent 
to Mr. Howard by her father, and which is far from 
accurate. In each of the Histories of Cumberland 
published by Hutchinson 2 and Lysons 3 , drawings are 
also given of this stone ; those in Hutchinson bearing 
some resemblance to those of Miss Cardonnell. The 
best representation which I have seen is that in Lysons, 
but in this the figures and some of the so-called 
magical knots are not quite correctly delineated, and 
the tracings of certain parts of the vines are too thick 
to convey a faithful impression of the gracefulness 
of the original sculpture. I made a drawing of this 
monument some time since, accurate and correct as 
possible in all its details, which I presented to Mr. Le 
Keux, and he proposed to devote two plates to this 
drawing in his valuable work on the Illustration of 
Ancient Crosses. 

We have no authentic copy or record of the in- 
scriptions on this remarkable monument ; or of the 
period when they first became illegible ; but of this 
we may rest assured, that they have not been dis- 
tinct for more than two centuries. Camden, who died 
in 1623, devoted his attention to them, but failed in 
deciphering them. In Gibson's edition of Camden's 
Britannia, 1695, this monument is thus described 4 : — 
'In the churchyard is a cross of one entire square 
stone, about twenty foot high, and curiously cut ; 
there is an inscription, too, but the letters are so dim 
that they are not legible. But seeing the cross is of 
the same kind as that in the arms of the family of 



Maugharis Second Account, i8jj 55 

Vaux, one may conjecture that it has been made by 
some of that family/ If Camden's measurement be 
correct, it must comprehend the pedestal, shaft, and 
the cross on its summit, which cross must conse- 
quently have been 21 inches high. 1 From Camden's 
observations we may naturally infer that the inscrip- 
tion must have been lost long before his day. 

Lord William Howard (commonly called Belted 
Will), who died in the same year as Camden, also 
attempted to recover the inscription, but without suc- 
cess. In the History of Cumberland, published by 
Nicholson and Burn, 2 in 1777, we read as follows : — 
k The Lord William Howard of Naworth (a lover of 
antiquities) caused the inscriptions thereon to be care- 
fully copied, and sent them to Sir Henry Spelman 
to interpret. The task being too hard for Sir Henry, 
he transmitted the copy to Olaus Wormius, History 
Professor at Copenhagen, who was then about to 
publish his Monumenta Danica.' 3 

Sir H. Spelman reads one part of the inscriptions 
(which is said to have been ' in 4 epistylio crucis,' 
and which I take to be the bottom line 5 on the south 
side,) thus 6 : — 



mmmruh 



i. e., Rices Dryhtness 7 : which may be translated, 'of 
the kingdom of our Lord,' or (the monument) ' of a 
powerful Lord.' 8 Wanleius, in his Catalogue, p. 248, 
with a slight variation of the letters, reads this line, 
'Rynas Dryhtness,' 9 i. e., 'mysteria Domini,' — 'the 
Runes or mysterious characters of our Lord.' 10 Wan- 
leius took this from the Cottonian Codex in the 
British Museum. The learned antiquary, Olaus Worm- 
ius, in his Monumenta Danica, pp. 162, 168, notices 



56 



Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 



the inscription sent by Spelman, and prints it exactly 
as it was sent to him, but owns at the same time 
that he did not know what to make of it. One part 
of it, which he 1 says was in 2 epistylio crucis (the bot- 
tom line of the south side), supposing the characters 
to be Scandinavian Runes, and dividing the line into 
eighteen letters, — 



mmmmB 



he reads thus 3 : i.e., Rino satuRunastinoth, 4 — 'Rino 
made these Runic stones.' Hickes, in his Thesaurus, 
Grammatica Anglo-Saxonica, makes some slight devia- 
tions from the reading of Spelman, and gives the line 
thus,— [12] 'Roden dryhtness,' 5 — 'the cross of our 
Lord.' Bishop Nicholson 6 (formerly Bishop of Carlisle, 
who devoted much of his attention to the recovery 
of these inscriptions,) says in the year 1685, ' on the 
south side, nourishes and conceits as before, and to- 
wards the bottom, the following decayed inscription 7 : — 



wtmmm i 



The defects in this short piece are sufficient to dis- 
courage me from attempting to expound it ; but pos- 
sibly it may be read thus : — ' Gag Ubbo erlet ' 8 : 
' Ubbo conquered the robbers.' I may observe that 
the Bishop's copy 9 of these letters is very inaccurate, 
and embraces portions of the sculpture, which he has 
mistaken for letters. 

The late Mr. Kemble, in his memoir, 10 (Archaeologia, 
vol. xxviii., part 16,) read this line nearly the same 
as Spelman— 'Ric.es dryhtkes' — 'Domini potentis,' 
which he said may be part of an inscription— the 
first word or words being lost — or the pillar itself 
may be taken as part of the sentence, thus, ' Signum 



Maugharis Second Account, iSjy 57 

Domini potentis ' * ; which means — ' the monument of 
a powerful lord.' Kemble said 2 — 'Whether this in- 
scription (referring to the one read by Grimm) and 
the stone on which it was cut, stood alone, or whether 
they formed part of some larger monument, I do not 
know.'(i5) 

In the ' Gentleman's Magazine,' 1742, p. 368, is a 
paper from the pen of Mr. George Smith, who, accord- 
ing to the ' Biographia Cumb.,' 3 was a native of 
Scotland ; a man of genius and learning ; who lived 
for some time near Brampton, and was a great con- 
tributor to the ' Gentleman's Magazine.' Mr. Smith 
gives a description of the north side of the monument, 
but never favoured the public with his promised 
dissertation on its remaining sides.(i6) 

(15) Speaking of the present monument, Kemble said — ' I beg 
to refer the reader 4 to the careful copy of this (the inscription) fur- 
nished by Mr. Howard of Corby Castle. This plate contains three 
several portions of the inscription. Of fig. 1 but one letter, an R, is 
now legible. Fig. 2, which contains indistinct traces of nine lines of 
Runes, and of which the loss may be said to be irreparable, offers 
here and there a legible letter or two, but no more. Fig. 3, on the 
contrary, is still in perfect preservation : unfortunately it supplies us 
with only one word, and that a proper name — CYNIBURUG or 
CYNIBURUH, which contains unquestionable evidence of great 
antiquity. Who this lady was it would be absurd to attempt to 
guess ; but I think that the fifth line of the inscription in fig. 2 may 
also possibly have contained her name ; while the second line of the 
same, commencing with letters which apparently formed the word 
CRIST, render it likely that this, as well as the Ruthwell pillar, was 
a Christian work. The most important deduction from the name I 
have read is, that the inscription was an Anglo-Saxon, not a Norse 
one.' (Kemble on Anglo-Saxon Runes. Archaeologia, vol. 28, 
P- 346-70 

(16) In Mr. Smith's paper on the north side it is stated, p. 319, 
on the authority of the ' Magna Britannia Antiqua et Nova,' that 
the cross was washed over with a white oily cement. 5 I have noticed 
several remains of this cement. The letters appear to have been 



58 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

The late Henry Howard, Esq., of Corby Castle, in 
a communication to the Society of Antiquaries in the 
year 1801 (see Archseologia, vol. 14, p. 118) says that 
he spent two days 1 in an attempt to recover the in- 
scription on this cross. (17) 

Although Mr. Howard probably did not actually 
succeed in deciphering any part of it, yet, so far as 
I know, he was the first person to whose learned re- 
searches we are indebted for the very ingenious sug- 

filled with it level with the surface of the stone. It is white, covered 
with a thin coat of green, and then with a covering of grey rust of 
the exact colour of the stone itself ; so that for a long time it escaped 
my observation when embedded in the letters. It is so hard and 
tenacious that it is almost impossible to eradicate it ; the point of a 
knife making no impression. I mention this circumstance because 
I have been censured by a Mr. Robert White, 2 of Newcastle, and some 
other fastidious antiquarians, for painting the inscribed portions of 
the cross — men who had neither the perseverance nor the ability to 
recover the lost inscriptions themselves, and who could only snarl at 
the attempts and the success of others. I consider, however, that 
I was justified in resorting to every expedient that offered a prob- 
ability of assistance in tracing the very dubious and worn-out marks, 
provided I did no injury to the stone, and I defy the whole body 
of these gentlemen to prove that I have injured the cross in the 
slightest degree by painting a few portions of it. I can assure them 
that I venerate the cross at Bewcastle as much as if it had been made 
from my own bones. 

(17) His mode of operation, according to his own account, seems 
to have been as follows : — He cut slips of paper of the breadth of the 
lines, and took the impression, a few letters at a time, by rubbing 
the paper placed thereon with a piece of ivory, working the paper in 
as much as possible with the finger, and afterwards following the 
finger at the edges of every part of the letters with the pencil. He 
speaks thus of the inscription — ' The third, fourth, and fifth lines 
are the most perfect. Towards the lower part scarce anything is to 
be made out. On the whole, indeed, little more than the vestiges 
of the inscription remain ; the perpendicular parts of the letters are 
discernible, and have probably been deepened by the rain, but the 
horizontal and other parts are nearly obliterated.' He offers no 
interpretation of the inscription. 



Maugharis Second Account, i8jy 59 

gestion 1 as to Bewcastle being the tomb of King Al- 
frid. Although Mr. Howard failed in his attempt to open 
the lock, yet he was probably the first person to point out 
the right key. 

[13] In the History of Cumberland published by 
Hutchinson in 1794 is a long article on this monument, 
with a copy of the inscription 2 published in the 
' Gentleman's Magazine,' which I suspect to have 
been made first by Lord William Howard, and sent 
by him to Sir H. Spelman, and afterwards published 
in the 'MonumentaDanica' of Wormius. 3 TheLysons, 
in their History of Cumberland, have also favoured 
this cross with a passing notice. Many antiquarians 
have visited it at different periods, but I am not aware 
that any one has published any account or explanation 
of it, besides the parties already mentioned. I shall 
now venture to offer a detailed account of it. 

THE CROSS. 
On the crown of the pillar is a cavity yk inches 
deep and 8i inches square, designed to hold the foot 
of the small cross which formerly surmounted the 
shaft ; the loss of which is much to be regretted. 
Mr. Smith, in his dissertation already mentioned, says 
that it was demolished long ago by popular frenzy 
and enthusiasm. The tradition of the district says 
that it was broken off by an ill-aimed cannon ball 
when Cromwell destroyed the castle. But both of 
these statements are probably incorrect. From Gough's 
edition of Camden we find that a slip of paper had 
been found in Camden's own copy of his ' Britannia ' 
(Ed. 1607, in the Bodleian Library), accompanied by 
the following note 4 — 'I received this morning a ston 
from my Lord of Arundel, sent him from my Lord 
William. It was the head of a cross at Bucastle.' 



60 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

Now Camden died in 1623, and as Cromwell did not 
visit these parts till about 20 years afterwards (if he 
ever visited them at all), it is very evident from this 
fact, and from this statement of Camden, that the 
disappearance of this cross may be more justly at- 
tributed to the antiquarian propensities of Belted Will, 
than to any of the errant balls of Cromwell's artillery. 

East Side. 

A vine springing from the bottom of the pillar, and 
highly relieved, is represented as gracefully winding 
up the East side in serpentine undulations, with nu- 
merous branches starting from it, covered with foliage 
and bunches of grapes. This side of the monument 
bears a considerable resemblance to two sides of the 
Runic monument at Ruthwell, near Dumfries, which 
is said to be the only stone 1 hitherto discovered in 
Scotland with a Runic inscription : no Runes having 
yet been found even in the Orkney or Shetland Isles, 
where they might have been expected in abundance. 

In each of the regular and flowing curves of the 
vine an animal, or a bird, is artfully sculptured (in 
alto relievo) in what is considered by some people 
as the old Gothic style, and is in the act of feeding 
on the fruit. In the lowest curve is a quadruped 
somewhat resembling a fox-hound. In each of the 
next two curves is the representation of an imaginary 
biped, having the head and shoulders of an animal, 
while the body tapers away into a long, flexible, and 
curled tail, with an enlarged point, curiously entwined 
round the stem and branches, the lower biped bear- 
ing some resemblance to one on the cross at Ruth- 
well. In the curve above this is a bird like a hawk 
or an eagle ; and in the next curve is a bird like a 
raven ; these two birds being nearly the same in 



Manghan's Second Account, i8jy 61 

figure, but considerably larger than two similar birds 
at Ruthwell. In each of the two succeeding curves 
is a sculptured squirrel, the Ruthwell Cross differing 
from this at Bewcastle in having more birds, and only 
one squirrel. The vine, gradually growing more 
slender, winds again into two elegant curves, and 
appears to terminate with clusters of grapes. 

The sculpture on this side of the cross has suffered 
very little damage from the corroding effects of the 
weather. The buds, blossoms, and fruit have been 
so carefully and exquisitely delineated by the chisel 
of the workman, and are still so faithfully preserved, 
that they seem as if they were things only just start- 
ing into life.(iS) There [14] is no inscription now on 
the east side. It is probable however that there have 
been some letters near the top of the shaft on a part 
which has been broken off. 

West Side. 

The west side is the most important on account 
of its ornaments, and also its inscriptions. On a plain 
surface (about nine inches deep, near the top of the 
cross) which appears to have surmounted the dec- 

(18) Bishop Nicholson looks upon these flourishes and conceits 
as nothing more ' than the statuary's fancy ' ; and Mr. Hutchinson 
thinks ' it would be extending a desire of giving extraordinary 
import to works of antiquity to suppose they were intended to carry 
any emblematical meaning : they are similar to the ornaments of the 
capitals and fillets in Gothic structures of the eleventh century, 
or near about that time, and no one ever yet presumed to assert they 
were to be construed as hieroglyphics.' According to Boece, 1 the 
hieroglyphic figures on ancient crosses were borrowed from the 
Egyptians, and were used by the natives in place of letters ; and both 
he and subsequent historians have assigned a Danish origin to many 
of them — an idea which is quite repudiated by the present race of 
Danish antiquarians. 



62 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

orated parts on each of the four sides, are the follow- 
ing remains of Runic letters. 



ft! 1 1 



They are apparently fragments of the letters K, S, 
and S, in the word KRISTUS, which occurs again a 
little lower down on this side : the lower part of the 
letter K, the middle and lower part of the first S, and 
the termination of the last S. being all that now re- 
mains of the word. It will appear from the succeed- 
ing pages of this Treatise why I suppose these frag- 
ments to be constituent parts of the word KRISTTUS. 
Bishop Nicholson says — ' On the west side of the 
stone we have three fair draughts, which evidently 
enough manifest the monument to be Christian. . . . 
On the top stands the effigies of the B. V. with the 
Babe in her arms and both their heads encircled with 
glories.' Mr. Hutchinson coincides with the prelate 
as to this figure, and Mr. Armstrong represents it like 
a mitred ecclesiastic. The Lysons say of this sculp- 
ture — ' The female figure is so defaced that nothing 
more than a general outline can be distinguished ; 
what she holds in her left arm is much better pre- 
served, and is the holy lamb.' On carefully remov- 
ing the moss from the stone I ascertained that the 
Lysons were correct as to the ' Agnus Dei,' but not 
as to the figure of a female, for the beard itself, if 
there were no other marks, affords sufficient proof 
that it must be the representation of St. John the 
Baptist, and not of the Blessed Virgin. The head of 
the 'Agnus Dei' has been encircled with a small 
, nimbus ' or ' glory,' but there is no trace of one 



Maugharis Second Account, iSjy 63 

surrounding the head of the Apostle. There is a 
similar figure on the Ruthwell Cross, although it has 
evidently not been sculptured from the same design. 
Dr. Duncan, in his illustrations of the Ruthwell monu- 
ment, describes this image as representing ' the Father 
standing on two globes or worlds (indicating probably 
the world which now is and that which is to come) 
with the Agnus Dei in his bosom.' 

Immediately below this figure are two lines of Runic 
letters to which my attention was at first drawn by 
the very imperfect representation of them in the plates 
in Lysons. On divesting these letters of their mossy 
covering, and obtaining a mould in plaster of Paris 
from this part of the stone, I found that although 
extremely dim, the letters were still perfect and legible. 
This short inscription is in the Latin language, while 
the other inscriptions on the monument are in the 
Anglo-Saxon, thus rendering the monument one of 
the bi-lingual order. The inscription, when rendered 
into the English language, is simply ' Jesus Christ ' ; 
and undoubtedly refers to the figure of our Saviour 
immediately below it, thus limiting the period of the 
erection of the monument to the Christian era. It 
may be read thus 1 in Runic and Roman characters: — 



mtimm 

?h ki mm 



+ GES SUS 
KRIS TTUS. 

Mr. Smith says — ' That the monument is Danish 
appears incontestible from the characters : Scottish 
and Pictish monuments having nothing but hiero- 
glyphics, and the Danish both.' Mr. Hutchinson 



64 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

thinks that 'his assertion was hasty of the Scottish 
and Pictish monuments ' — but he also appears to 
consider the monument Danish. These letters, how- 
ever, are undoubtedly Anglo-Saxon Runes, and they, 
as well as the others found on this cross, generally 
agree with those found [15] in the Codex Exoniensis 
published by Hickes, thus proving the monument to 
be of Anglo-Saxon construction ; and hence arises 
one of the most important subjects of inquiry con- 
nected with this memorial, to which I now beg to 
draw the reader's special notice for a few moments. 

It has been a question much debated amongst our 
learned Antiquarians whether the Anglo-Saxons had 
any system of writing peculiar to themselves, or 
whether they used entirely the Roman characters of 
Augustine. This stone, however, seems to set the 
matter quite at rest, 1 and a doubt can no longer be 
entertained on this point. Hence it becomes a monu- 
ment of the greatest historical interest and importance, 
and goes far to prove that the earliest Anglo-Saxon 
colonists were acquainted with the use of letters ; for 
assuredly if they were first taught to read and write 
by St. Augustine in the Roman characters, we cannot 
believe that Runic characters would be introduced at 
any subsequent period. The Roman characters would 
be much more easily learned and used ; and hence 
their general adoption in preference to the rude forms 
of the Anglo-Saxon letters, which in all probability 
were little known by the mass of the people. 

It ought, however, to be carefully borne in mind 
that before the coming of Augustine into this country, 
in the year 597, we have scarcely a single trustworthy 
record of any one event in the history of our country. 
When Augustine and his companions introduced their 
system of Christian observances into this island, there 



Maughan's Secona Account, i8j-j 65 

can be little doubt but that they introduced at the 
same time a system of writing and the keeping of annals ; 
and hence the few documents of this early period 
bear the marks of their Roman as well as ecclesiast- 
ical origin. It is very remarkable that the Charters, 
and other important documents of that early period, 
are all in the Latin language. Although in the early 
ages of the Christian Church many prelates as well 
as princes were unable to write even their own names, 
yet it is probable that the order of the clergy, as a 
body, occupied a much better position, so far as this 
goes, than the laity ; and hence the clergy became 
at that early period the tabelliones, i. <?., the draughts- 
men and engrossers of these instruments, and re- 
mained such for many succeeding centuries. Hence 
also arose the prevalence of the Latin language. It 
is not unreasonable to suppose, however, that some 
of the Anglo Saxons, especially those of the ecclesiast- 
ical order, were acquainted with a system of writing 
different from the Roman, although we cannot believe 
that there was any wide dispersion of such a power 
of recording the events of the time. (19) 

(19) The letters of the alphabet have always been called ' Runes,' 
i. e., secret letters (' run ' signifying a secret or mystery), probably 
because known only to very few persons ; and hence the letters on 
this cross may be properly designated Anglo-Saxon Runes. Such 
Runes were only fitted for short inscriptions, and consequently we 
generally find them on stones or blocks of wood, and probably they 
might, as has been generally supposed, be used for little else than 
auguries, divinations, and witchcraft. They were not at all adapted 
for continuous writing, and there is perhaps little probability of their 
having ever been put to any such use. Modern researches have 
gone far to prove that the Runic alphabet and characters of the Ger- 
mans, Anglo-Saxons, and Dano- Saxons, were not a corruption of a 
more perfect alphabet, but that they possessed an undeniably primi- 
tive stamp, which bears a certain degree of resemblance to the 
alphabets of almost all the early inhabitants of Europe — such as the 



66 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

We may now return from our digression and pro- 
ceed with the further examination of the inscription. 
The first thing that arrests our attention is the mark 
of the Cross which precedes this inscription, and also 
some of the other inscriptions on this monument. 
This use of the holy emblem as a prefix is full of 
interest.(2o) The mode of [16] spelling the names of 
our Redeemer is also interesting, as it shows the 

Etruscans, the Turditanians, the Celtiberians, &c., but more es- 
pecially a decided affinity to the Ionic, i. e., the most ancient of the 
Greek alphabets; which circumstance is considered by some as 
pointing to the east as the source of Runic civilization. Bosworth, 
in his Saxon Grammar, page 27, says—' Fortunatus, indeed, in the 
sixth century, mentions the rude Runes of the Gothic hordes of Italy. 
But Hickes cannot produce a single instance of Runic alphabetical 
writing older than the eleventh century, when Runes, which were 
only Talismanic figures, were first applied to alphabetical use, by 
expressing sounds instead of representing things.' Several Anglo- 
Saxon Runic inscriptions have, however, been discovered and deci- 
phered, which are undoubtedly connected with a period long anterior 
to the eleventh century ; and the Bewcastle pillar is, I believe, at 
present the earliest known specimen of Anglo-Saxon Runic writing. 
(20) Professor Wilson, in his Prehistoric Annals of Scotland, 
elucidates the Runic inscriptions on the crosses in the Isle of Man, and 
infers from the mark of the cross which occurs on one of them, that 
such a mark was used to show that the inscription was the work of 
an Ecclesiastic. We must not, however, draw any such general 
inference from the use of this mark on this cross. It is not necessary 
to suppose that the occurrence of the mark of the cross generally 
denotes anything of the kind : and more especially so on this Bew- 
castle monument. Mosheim tells us (even as early as the third cen- 
tury) that the cross was supposed to administer a victorious power 
over all sorts of trials and calamities, and that no Christian undertook 
anything of moment without arming himself with the influence of 
this triumphant sign. The use of the cross as a symbol appears 
to have been very prevalent among our Anglo-Saxon forefathers. 
On nearly every one of their coins the legends, or inscriptions, have 
the cross prefixed. Again, if we look into Anglo-Saxon Charters 
of an early period, and other documents, we find these marks of the 
crosses by dozens, as prefixes to the signatures of each of the parties. 



Manghan's Second Account, iSyy 6j 

method in use among our Anglo-Saxon forefathers in 
the 7th century. 1 We may presume that the Italian 
mode of spelling the word ' Gessus ' with a G was 
in use from an early period ; and it appears to be 
still continued in that language, for in a legal docu- 
ment in Italian, dated at Leghorn in Tuscany in the 
last century, I find the word ' Gessus ' commencing 

In short, the universality of the sign of the cross is recognized in the 
earliest Italian as well as Anglo-Saxon documents. It seems also 
to have been prevalent as a prefix to the Roman inscriptions after 
a certain period. In a thick Italian quarto volume, ' Roma Sotter- 
anea,' published at Rome in 1650 by Antonius Bossius, an Ecclesi- 
astical antiquarian, which contains a copious history of those wonder- 
ful burial-places at Rome called the Catacombs, we find facsimiles 
of a large number of the inscriptions which are to be met with there, 
and we also find the cross attached to a very considerable part of 
these inscriptions. In fact, the cross appears to have been the al- 
most universally adopted symbol of our redemption by every nation 
which embraced Christianity. Besides the numerous instances of 
its appearance on the gravestones of the primitive Christians in the 
Catacombs we know that the earliest Christians gloried in its use. 
The banners of the Emperor Constantine were, by directions from 
heaven, as has been stated, blazoned with this representation of 
Christ crucified, ' in hoc signo vinces.' Among Christians in the east, 
even to this day, it is the usual sign of recognition ; and in the Greek 
Churches this emblem is everywhere to be found. Long before 
material crosses were in use, Tertullian tells us that ' upon every 
motion, at their going out or coming in, at dressing, at their going 
to the bath, or at meals, or to bed, or whatever their employments or 
occasions called them to, the primitive Christians were wont to mark 
their foreheads with the sign of the cross,' adding that ' this was 
a practice which tradition had introduced, custom had confirmed, 
and which the present generation received upon the credit of that 
which went before them.' It is probable, however, that the cross 
was only an adopted symbol, and that it was by no means confined 
to Christians, and to Christian monuments. The Egyptians re- 
garded it as the emblem of reproduction and resurrection. It is 
more than probable that a heathen feeling lurked under this symbol, 
and that it was held binding, even before the introduction of Christi- 
anity. The hammer of the heathen god Thunor (Thor) was at one 



68 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

with the letter G. I have carefully examined the in- 
scriptions given in the ' Roma Sotteranea,' but have 
found no trace of these names so spelt there. In fact 
the word ' Jesus ' scarcely ever occurs in the very 
long list of inscriptions given by Bossius. I find the 
expressions ' domino Zesu.' and ' pie Zesus ' ; and 
these are the nearest approaches to the orthography 
of the Bewcastle Monument. 

The letter K and the double letter T in the word 
' Kristtus ' also merit a passing notice. The letter 
K for C is sometimes found in Roman inscriptions. 
Horsley mentions an altar found at Stanwix, near 
Carlisle, afterwards placed at Drawdykes Castle, in 
which K is used for C ; thus, ' conjux Karissima ' 
instead of ' conjux carissima.' The letter K for C 
also appears in other inscriptions of an older date 
than any in Britain. The doubling of the letter T is 
said by some Saxon grammarians to be characteristic 
of Dano-Saxon usage, but its appearance on the Bew- 
castle Monument shows it to have been so used long 
before the Danes visited this country. A character 
similar to the second letter in the first line is given 

time the symbol in all contracts, and that hammer was literally and 
really the representation of a cross. In the ' Runographia Scandica ' 
of Olaus Verellus 1 twelve illustrations of stones with Scandinavian 
Runic inscriptions are given in which the cross is conspicuous. This 
emblem on these stones cannot be supposed to have any connection 
Math Christianity, for Odin was the god to whom the Scandinavians 
paid their homage. In the first of these illustrations on which the 
cross appears, the inscription is as follows: — 'Jubern Ukvi has 
inscribed this stone to the memory of his father Irbern, and has 
dedicated these sepulchral Runes to the god Odin.' It is also worth 
observing that this mark or sign seems to have been appropriated 
from the very beginning to some great mystery, for we read in the 
Book of Exodus that the Israelites could overcome the Amalekites 
no longer than Moses, by stretching out his arms, continued in the 
form of a cross. 



Maug hart's Second Account, 1857 69 

as the letter O in the Exeter manuscript published 
by Hickes ; and the use of the dipthong CE instead 
of the vowel E is by no means contrary to Saxon 
usage. In the Mceso-Gothic language the word 'Jesus' 
was written with the dipthong AI — thus, IAISUS. 
Hence I was for a long time in doubt whether these 
two lines ought to be read ' Icessus Kristtus,' or 
' Gessus Kristtus ' with a cross prefixed. Having, 
however, obtained a very good rubbing of the lines, 
and having found the cross prefixed in so many other 
parts of the monument, I am now of opinion that the 
latter reading is probably the correct one. 

I believe I am right in asserting that [17] these two 
lines form the first portion of the inscriptions of the 
Bewcastle monument which have been correctly deciphered 
by any one. After considerable trouble and research 
I succeeded in recovering them in the summer of 
1854, and I made a communication to that effect soon 
afterwards to Mr. Way, one of the Secretaries of the 
Archaeological Institute. I also mentioned my read- 
ing of these two lines to several other persons who 
saw the monument, and pointed out to them the 
variety in the reading. 

Below the two lines of Runes above-mentioned is a 
figure which Bishop Nicholson conjectures to be ' the 
picture of some Apostle, Saint, or other holy man, 
in a sacerdotal habit, with a glory round his head.' 
Mr. Hutchinson describes it as ' the figure of a re- 
ligious person, the garments descending to his feet, 
the head encircled with a nimbus, not now appearing 
radiated, but merely a circular rise of the stone ; the 
right hand is elevated in a teaching posture, and the 
other hand holds a roll : a fold of the garment was 
mistaken by Mr. Armstrong for a string of beads. 
We conceive this figure to represent St. Cuthbert, 



yo Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

to whom the Church, as set forth by Nicholson and 
Burn, is dedicated.' The Lysons say — ' As he holds 
a roll (the sacred volumen) in his left hand, and the 
right hand is elevated in the act of benediction, we 
should rather suppose it was intended for our Saviour, 
who is frequently so represented in ancient works of 
art.' The two Runic lines above the figure now show 
that the Lysons were correct in their conjectures. 
The figure appears to be nearly an accurate fac-simile 
of the representation of our Saviour on the Ruthwell 
Cross. On the Bewcastle pillar each of the feet of 
our Saviour is represented as placed upon a pedestal 
which is no longer distinct. On the Ruthwell Cross 
each of these pedestals is more perfect, and repre- 
sents the head of a pig, 1 and they are undoubtedly 
intended for the same objects on the Bewcastle monu- 
ment, probably having an allusion to the miracle of 
the devils cast into the herd of swine. 

Under this figure of our Redeemer we find the re- 
mains of an inscription of nine lines, of which Camden 
said, ' the letters are so dim that they are not legible,' 
and which were considered so decayed in the time 
of Bishop Nicholson that he described them as ' the 
forementioned ruins of Lord Howard's inscription ' ; 
and declined even attempting to make out any part 
of it.(2i) 

(21) During the last few years my attention has been specially 
directed from time to time to the recovery of this long-lost inscription. 
I covered the inscribed parts first of all with soft mud and sods for a 
few months, which process entirely removed the thick coat of moss 
and lichens with which the letters were so thickly covered, without 
doing any injury to the stone. I then tried to obtain dry rubbings 
with lead, and grass, but from the defaced state of the letters, these 
rubbings were very imperfect and unsatisfactory. I next obtained 
a mould and cast of the inscribed part in plaster of Paris, but without 
any great result. I then gave these parts a coat of paint which ren- 



Maughans Second Account, iSjj 



71 



The following wood-cut shows the inscription in 

its Runic characters. 1 and beneath is the inscription 

in Roman letters, the letters in brackets denoting 

compound Runes. The Roman letters, of course, are 

not on the stone. 

Runic. 



ThWiBUmct 
W-1 riTTf H 



3**flr4Ki: 



I I Ji I > I I. I A I » • 

wRprtwr 

npkwK 
mm hmh 



Roman. 
+ [TH]ISSIGB[EA]CN 
[THU]NSETT[ON]H 
W[AET]REDW[AETH] 
GARALWFWOL 
[THU]AFTALCFRI 
[THU]EAN KYNIflNGl 
EAC OSWIUPG] 
+ GEBID HE 
OSINNASAW[HU]LA. 2 

dered the letters more distinct than the cast. I afterwards tried 
some rubbings after the following method which was partly recommend- 



72 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

[18] I read the inscription thus — 
+ THISSIG BEACN THUN SETTON HWAETRED 
WAETHGAR ALWFWOLTHU AFT ALCFRITHU 
EAN KYNIING EAC OSWIUING. + GEBID HEO 
SINNA SAWHULA— 

and it may be thus translated : + Hwcetred, Wcethgar, 
and Alwfwold (the names of three persons) — setton — 
set up— thissig thun beacn — this slender pillar — aft 
Alcfrithu — in memory of Alcfrid — ean Kyniing— ane 
King — eac Oswiuing — and son of Oswy. + Gebid — 
pray thou — heo — for them — sinna — their sins — sawhula 
— their souls. 

In this inscription the first character or mark is, I 
now believe, that of a cross, although it is not very 
distinct. I was for a long time 1 inclined to adopt the 
idea of Bishop Nicholson 2 that the inscription com- 
menced with the monogram IHS for 'Jesus hominum 
Salvator,' i. e., Jesus the Saviour of men. Good 
rubbings, however, and repeated examinations of the 
stone, and the frequent occurrence of this emblem 
on other parts of the cross, lead me to the conclusion 

ed by Mr. Way in March, 1854, and which was more successful than 
the other processes : I cut slips of white paper, such as is generally 
used by printers, rather broader than the length of the letters ; a 
separate slip for each line. I fastened these slips, one at a time, to 
the stone with strings to prevent them from slipping, having pre- 
viously pricked them well with a pin to allow the air to escape through 
them. With a large sponge I then saturated them well with water, 
and pressed them to the stone till they adhered closely to it. After 
allowing them time to dry, and while still sticking to the stone, I 
gave them a careful rubbing with a black-lead rubber. By this 
process I succeeded in getting some good rubbings ; and from these 
rubbings, combined with the previous processes, and a repeated 
dwelling of the eye upon the letters, and countless tracings of the 
depressions and marks with the point of the finger, I have succeeded 
in gaining such knowledge of the almost worn-out characters, that 
I now venture to offer a version of this interesting inscription. 



Maugharis Second Account, iSjy 73 

that it has commenced with a cross. The word 
1 thissig * is not an unusual form of the pronoun 
k this, 1 such a termination being often l affixed to ad- 
jectives and pronouns. The word ' beacn ' is vari- 
ously written ' beacen, beacn, bocn, bycn, becen, and 
been,' and denotes ' a beacon, sign, or token/(22) 
The word 'thun' 2 means thin or slender, and has 
probably some reference to the size and shape of the 
monument. The first letter in the word k thun ' is a 
Trirunor, or compound Rune, being composed of the 

letters k TH ' — p — and the letter U — Pj — and hence 

by combination we have the Trirunor THU — 3p| ( 2 3) 

The word ' setton ' is the third person plural of 
the perfect tense of the verb 'settan ' — to set or place, 
and agrees with the three nominative cases Hwaetred, 
Waethgar, and Alwfwolthu.(24) 

(22) These two words may possibly be read thus : ' this sigbeacn ' 
— sigbeacn being a compound word derived from ' sige ' — victory, 
triumph : and hence the word ' sigbeacn ' means a token of triumph 
or victory. But as we have no record of any triumph or victory 
gained by Alcfrid for which the monument was reared, this part of 
the inscription may perhaps be more correctly rendered thus, ' thissig 
beacn.' 

(23) The cross-bars in this letter were for a long time a complete 
puzzle to me, having been noticed by me from the first. At last it 
was suggested that it might possibly be the compound Runic character 
' THU,' and from that time I experienced no further insurmountable 
difficulty in reading the inscription. From Mr. Howard's plate of the 
inscription it is evident that he had noticed these cross-bars. The 
same character appears in the words Alwfwolthu, Alcfrithu, and 
Ecgfrithu. 

(24) An old schoolfellow, the Rev. Thos. Calvert, of Norwich, 
visited Bewcastle for the purpose of inspecting the Monument, but 
had not an opportunity of seeing the inscription, as it was at that 
time covered with sods. He very shrewdly suggested that I might 
probably find the words ' beacon ' and ' setta ' upon it, as, in 



74 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

' Aft ' is the preposition, after or in memory of, and 
governs the word [19] Alcfrithu, to whom the monu- 
ment was erected. The word 'ean' 1 — one — is very- 
similar to our provincial word ' ane,' which is still in 
use in this district.(25) 

The word ' Gebid ' 2 stands for ' bid,' and is the 
second person singular of the imperative mood of the 
verb ' biddan' — to pray, to bid, or require. 3 The syl- 
lable ' ge ' is simply an expletive or augment, such 
an expletive being in common use. (26) 

The word ' heo ' is not an unusual form of the 
pronoun. ' Sinna ' is the plural form of ' sin ' or 

addition to the host of ingenious speculations already advanced 
as to the object of its erection, he thought it might have been a beacon 
or boundary cross set up to mark the extent of the fifteen miles around 
Carlisle granted by King Egfrid to the religious establishments at 
that city. After the monument was cleaned I sent him a copy of 
the inscribed part so far as I was then able to trace it. In letters 
which I afterwards received from him he favoured me with the fol- 
lowing acute observations. ' If the second word could be read 

sigbeakn it might mean a sign of victory ' ' Can the first part of 

the second line be ' upsetta,' i. e., set up." He also suggested that 
' Hwaetred ' might be an appellative, ' brave in council ' ; and 
stated that it occurred in the Codex Exoniensis ; and that it might 
also be a Saxon proper name ; that ' thun ' might be for ' thegn 
or then,' a thane ; that the first word might be ' thissig,' an old 
form of ' this, ' analogous to ' aenig, ' one ; and that it might per- 
haps be read thus : ' thissig bealtun 4 setta, ' set up this funeral monu- 
ment. This latter suggestion, however, (although a very ingenious 
one) would destroy the alliteration of the verse, and does not occupy 
all the traces on the stone. 

(25) In Scott's ' Border Exploits ' we find a plate of a grave- 
stone with the following inscription — ' Heir LYES ANE WORTHIE 
person calit william armstrong of sark who died the io 
day of June 1658 ^etatis stle 56.' 

(26) Bos worth, in his Anglo Saxon Dictionary, on the word 
' ge ' says— 'In verbs it seems sometimes to be a mere augment . . . 
it often changes the signification from literal to figurative ; as . . . 
biddan to bid, require ; gebiddan to pray.' 



Maugharis Second Account, iSjy 75 

1 syn,' and signifies sins. ' Sawhula ' is the plural 
formation of the word ' sawl,' also written ' sawol ' 
and ' sawul,' the letter ' h ' being also introduced 
according to a very common Anglo-Saxon usage. 1 

The inscription seems to consist of a few couplets 
of the alliterative versification of Anglo-Saxon poetry. 
Hence it becomes very important, and takes us far in 
advance of many of the preconceived opinions respect- 
ing our Anglo-Saxon forefathers. (27) 

It may be read in four couplets, 2 thus — 

1. -f- Thissig beacn 

Thun setton 

2. Hwaetred Waethgar Alwfwolthu 
Aft Alcfrithu 

3. Ean Kyniing 
Eac Oswiuing 

4. + Gebid heo sinna 

Sawhula. 
In the first couplet we have the compound letters 
TH as the alliterating letters : in the second couplet 
the letters A : in the third the letters E : and in the 

(27) Olaus Wormius, in the appendix to his Treatise de Literatura 
Runica, has given a particular account of the Gothic poetry, com- 
monly called Runic. He informs us that there were no fewer than 
136 different kinds of measure or verse used in the Vyses. He says 
that the Runic harmony did not depend either upon rhyme, or upon 
metrical feet, or quantity of syllables, but chiefly upon the number 
of syllables, and the disposition of the letters. In each distich, or 
couple of lines, it was requisite that three words should begin with 
the same letter : two of the corresponding words being placed in the 
first line of the distich, and the third in the second line, frequent 
inversions and transpositions being permitted in this poetry. The 
curious in this subject may consult likewise Dr. Hickes's Thesaurus 
Linguarum Septentrionalium ; particularly the 23rd chapter of his 
Grammatica Anglo- Saxonica et Moeso-Gothica. It appears that the 
Anglo-Saxons admired, and, in some measure, followed the northern 
Scaldi or Runes in forming the structure of their verse by a period- 

f 



y6 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

fourth the letters S. It is remarkable that these couplets 
rhyme with each other, and thus establish a probabil- 
ity (or perhaps something more) that both alliteration 
and rhyme have been made use of by the Anglo- 
Saxons from a very early period. Although we can- 
not actually produce any Anglo-Saxon poem in rhyme 
of that era, yet the Anglo-Saxon poets Aldhelm, a.d. 
709 — Boniface, a.d. 754 — the Venerable Bede, a.d. 735 
— Alcuin, and others — have left behind them Latin 
Poems in rhyme, which pre-supposes that this species 
of versification was anterior to, and commonly known 
in their time. 

A very interesting question arises, whether this 
Bewcastle specimen of Anglo-Saxon poetry is not the 
oldest on record, being nearly 1200 years old. My own 
impression is that no earlier example has been discov- 
ered. This circumstance considerably enhances the 
value and importance of this ancient cross. The only 
specimen of Anglo-Saxon poetry which can be sup- 
posed to compete with this is a fragment of a song 

ical repetition of similar letters, or by alliteration, and disregarded 
a fixed and determinate number of syllables. Rask, in his Anglo- 
Saxon Grammar, page 108, gives more specific rules for alliteration. 
Mr. Rask says — ' The Saxon alliteration is thus constructed : in two 
adjacent and connected lines of verse there must be three words 
which begin with one and the same letter, so that the third or last 
alliterative word stands the first word in the second line, and the 
first two words are both introduced in the first line. The initial 
letters in these three words are called alliterative. The alliterative 
letter in the second line is called the chief letter, and the other two are 
called assistant letters .... If the chief letter be a vowel, the assist- 
ants must be vowels, but they need not be the same. In short verses 
only one assistant letter is occasionally found. In Anglo-Saxon poetry 
the words followed each other in continued succession, as in prose, 
and were not written in lines and verses as in our modern poetry. 
The division into verses was made by the regular succession of the 
alliterating letters. 



Maugharis Second Account, iSjj 77 

which was written by Ceedmon, a monk who accus- 
tomed himself late in life to write religious poetry : 
and who died a.d. 6S0. His song was inserted by 
King Alfred in his Translation of Bede's Ecclesiastical 
History. In this brief fragment two of the couplets 
appear as rhyming with each other. This inscription 
also appears to upset some of the statements and 
theories of our best Anglo-Saxon grammarians with 
respect to what are called Dano-Saxon idioms and 
dialects, [20J throwing all their conjectures as to pecu- 
liarities introduced by the Danes topsy-turvy, and 
proving these supposed peculiarities to have belonged 
from the first to the Anglo-Saxon language. 

No doubt much ignorance prevails generally re- 
garding the habits of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors, for 
both public and private documents are only few and 
scant}' which give us any insight into the general 
polity and social history of these our forefathers ; and 
yet there are certain salient points in them which 
may be interesting to a majority of readers. In this 
memoir I shall, therefore, endeavour to give a brief 
philological examination of the words, as well as a 
biographical sketch (so far as history supplies us 
with the necessary data) of the persons whose names 
occur on this monument ; from which the reader will 
be able to draw his own inferences as to the state 
and grade of morals and civilization twelve hundred 
years ago, when the institutions of the Britons were 
probably in a progress of perishing through their 
own corruption, and received fresh life and vigour re- 
infused into them through the sanctity of the more 
lofty morality of the Christian dispensation. 

Oswy. 
I shall commence my biographical sketch with Oswy, 
(as being the head of the family) whom I find de- 
fa 



y8 Some Accounts of the Bewcastte Cross 

scribed in the ' Britannia Sancta ' as a religious prince 
who omitted no opportunity of exhorting his friends 
to embrace the true way of salvation, and inducing 
them to submit to the sweet yoke of the faith and 
law of Christ. I find the name occurring as ' Oswiu,' 
which is simply an abbreviation 1 of the Latin termina- 
tion ' Oswius.' I also find the word written ' Osuiu,' 
and Nennius calls him ' Osguid.' The termination 
' ing ' after a proper name, according to Anglo-Saxon 
usage, denoted ' the son of such a person ' ; hence 
the word ' Oswiuing ' means ' the son of Oswy.' 

By the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Northhumbria we 
generally understand all the counties in England north 
of the river Humber, and the southern counties of 
Scotland nearly as far as Edinburgh. In the year 633, 
or, according to some historians, 644, after the death 
of King Edwin, it was divided into two parts, namely, 
the Kingdom of Deira under Osric, which compre- 
hended (nearly) the counties of York, Durham, Lan- 
cashire, Westmorland, and Cumberland ; and the King- 
dom of Bernicia under Eanfrid, which contained the 
county of Northumberland and the southern counties 
of Scotland. Higden (Lib. 1, De Regnis Regnorum- 
que Limitibus) says that the Tyne divided the King- 
doms of Deira and Bernicia.(28) 

These two kings, Osric and Eanfrid, being soon 
afterwards slain by Cadwalla, King of the Britons, 

(28) The following extract is from Sir F. Palgrave's interesting 
little book, History of the Anglo-Saxons : — ' The British kingdoms 
of Defyr and Bryneich— Latinised into Deira and Bernicia'— ex- 
tending from the Humber to the Firth of Forth, were divided from 
each other by a forest, occupying a tract between the Tyne and 
the Tees ; and which, unreclaimed by man, was abandoned to wild 
deer. Properly speaking, this border land does not seem to have 
originally belonged to either kingdom ; but, in subsequent times, the 
boundary between Deira and Bernicia was usually fixed at the Tyne.' 



Maughari s Second Account, jSjj 79 

the Kingdom of Northhumbria came to Oswald, who 
is said to have held it nine years. In the year 642, 
Oswy, son of Ethelfrid, succeeded to the Kingdom of 
Northhumbria, on the death of Oswald, who was slain 
by Penda, King of the Mercians. Oswy reigned 28 
years, and Henry of Huntingdon (Lib. 2.) tells us that 
he subdued a great part of the nations of the Picts 
and Scots, and made them tributary. He also enjoyed 
the title of Bretwalda, which gave him an authority 
over all the other Anglo-Saxon kings. 

Oswy, during the early part of his reign, had a 
partner in the royal dignity called Oswin, of the race 
of King Edwin, a man of wonderful piety and devo- 
tion, who governed the province of the Deiri seven 
years in very great prosperity, and was himself beloved 
by all men. But Oswy could not live at peace with 
him. Oswin, perceiving that he could not maintain 
a war against one who had more auxiliaries than 
himself, took refuge in the house of Earl Hunwald, 
in Yorkshire, where he was betrayed by him, and 
slain in a cruel and detestable manner by the orders 
of Oswy, in the year 650. After the death of Oswin 
the kingdom of Deira probably devolved upon Alc- 
frid, the son of Oswy ; his father retaining the north- 
ern portion of the kingdom of Northhumbria. Not- 
withstanding this outrage, Oswy appears to have been 
a man zealous in the maintenance of the Christian 
faith, for when [21] Prince Peada, son of Penda, King 
of Mercia, came to Oswy in the year 653 requesting 
to have his daughter Elfleda given to him in marriage, 
he could not obtain Oswy's sanction unless he would 
first embrace the faith of Christ, and be baptized, with 
the nation which he governed. 

Oswy continued firm to the religious professions of 
his youth, probably influenced by the persuasions of 



80 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

his Queen Eanfleda, the daughter of Eadwin, King 
of Deira, who had been driven from her native North- 
humbria in her infancy, and, after an education among 
her maternal relatives in Kent, returned into North- 
humbria as the wife of Oswy, inheriting (it is said) 
all the religious constancy of her mother and her grand- 

mother.(29) 

Alfrid or Alcfrid. 

The peculiar way in which the word ' Alcfrithu ' 
is spelt may seem somewhat objectionable, 1 but we 
ought to bear in mind that orthography has been 
very capricious, and at all periods has assumed the 
features of a constant tendency to change. In fact, 
it would now be quite impossible to settle the orthog- 
raphy which was prevalent at any given former 
period, or to reduce the various modes of spelling 
names, which we find in ancient charters and other 
documents, to any consistent form. The Latin ter- 
mination of proper names in ' thus ' (and its abbrev- 
iation ' thu ') instead of ' dus,' appears to have 
been quite common. As a proof of the numerous 
and irregular modes of spelling names among the 
Anglo-Saxons we may adduce the following instances. 
We find Ethelbirthum, Egelbrictum, and Egelbright- 
um (the h before the t) for Ethelbert : Oidilvaldo for 
Ethelwald : Edbrithum, Egbrithro, Egbirtho, Egberthus, 
Edbriht, Edbrit, and Edbrichtus for Egbert : and many 
others. In a charter of Coenulf, or Cynulf, King of 
the Saxons (a.d. 808, Ms. C. C Cantab., cxi. f., Jj) 
we find the signature ' Alhfrithi.' 2 In the Anglo-Saxon 
charters we also find the signatures Egfrido, Ecgfrith, 

(29) In Gale's Appendix i to our old British historian Nennius 
we read that Osguid (Oswy) had two wives— the one called Nemmedt 
the daughter of Roith the son of Rum, and the other called Eanfled. 
His first wife Nemmedt was also called Ricmmelth 3 in Nennius. 



Mangharis Second Account, iSjy 81 

Egfrid, Ecgfrithi, Ecgfridus, Ecgferth, for Egfrid, the 
brother of the Alcfrid whose name is recorded on 
this monument ; and we also find the signatures Wil- 
fridus, Wilfrith, Wilfrid, Wilfrithus, for Wilfrid, a bishop, 
and friend of Alcfrid. Numerous other instances might 
be easily adduced. 

Cases, however, do sometimes occur where the 
variation of a single letter in the mode of spelling 
what is apparently the same name makes a very wide 
and important difference. We may take the word 
' Alfrid,' as an example. Oswy had two sons, each 
of them a king, but at different periods, who in our 
English translations of Venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical 
Historj- are generally called w Alfrid.' On referring, 
however, to Stephenson's x Latin edition of Bede, 2 we 
find a small but an essential distinction. The name 
of the first ' Alfrid,' who is the person to whom this 
pillar was erected, is in that edition written thus, 
; Alchfrido.' (Bk. 3, ch. 14.) And a note upon this 
place sa}^s : — ' Ealhfrith, Saxon version. This individ- 
ual has frequently been confounded with Aldfrid, a nat- 
ural son of Oswy, who succeeded his father in 685. 
Upon this subject a note in Lappenberg, Gesch. v., Eng- 
land 1, 180, may be consulted with advantage. (30) Bede 
in other passages calls the first Alcfrid, and the second 

(30) Bede, in his Life of St. Cuthbert, ch. 24, states that Aldfrid 
was the illegitimate brother of Egfrid ; and that he subjected himself 
to voluntary exile in Ireland, during which he devoted himself to the 
study of the scriptures. It appears (from the Britannia Sancta) to 
have been customary for many of the English to leave their native 
country and retire into Ireland, either for the sake of improving 
themselves in divine learning, or to embrace there a more holy and 
continent life ; the Irish most willingly receiving them, and furnish- 
ing them with their daily sustenance, and supplying them with books, 
and teaching them gratis. In the library of the Dean and Chapter 
of Durham is preserved an ancient Ritual which is said to have 
belonged to Aldfrid. 3 Asser, in his Annals (anno 703), describes him 



82 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

Aldfrid. In the Ang. Sax. Chron. the latter is styled 
'Aldfrith,' and 'Ealdferth.' This Aldfrid succeeded 
his brother Egfrid in the kingdom of Northhumbria 
in the year 685, and died in 705. In Stephenson's 
edition of Bede we find the words Alchfrido, [22] Alch- 
fridi, and Alchfrid, for the first king ; and Aldfridi, 
Aldfrido, Aldfrid, and Alfrid, for the second king. 
In the Life of Wilfrid by Eddie, who flourished about 
50 years after the erection of the monument, we find 
the name of the first Alfrid mentioned eight times, 
and it is remarkable that it is spelt in six different 
ways, none of them agreeing with the orthography 
of Bede ; thus, Aluchfrido, Ealfridus, Alucfridus, Al- 
fridus, Ahlfridus, Alhfridum. In the same work we 
also find the second Alfrid mentioned, and spelt 
thus — Alfridum, Alfredo, Aldfridum (with a note Ald- 
frithum). 

We may now pass on to a biographical sketch of 
the Alfrid, or Alcfrid, for whom this cross was erected. 1 
History gives us very little intimation of the various 
rulers who within their petty territories assumed the 
names of kings, and exercised the regal power ; and 
just about as little of the extent and the nature of 
the authority and powers often claimed and exercised 
by the sons and brothers of the ruling sovereigns. 
Perhaps in the early periods of Anglo-Saxon history 
the very name of king ' Kyniing,' may have been 

as a monk when he died. He is also mentioned in Fordun, bk. 3, 
ch. 43. Alcwin, who, according to Gale, flourished about the year 
780, calls him 'Altfrido ' — {Be Pontificibus, line 843)— and says 
that he was devoted to sacred studies from his early youth. In 
another passage (line 1080) he calls him 'Aldfridum.' According 
to Camden he was buried at Driffield, in Yorkshire. In the Saxon 
version of Bede he is called ' Ealdfrith.' This Aldfrid is also 
mentioned in the Chronicle of Holyrood, as succeeding to the king- 
dom a. D. 685, and dying A- d. 705. 



Maughan's Second Account, j8jj 83 

assumed by the sons of sovereigns whether they ex- 
ercised the sovereign rights or not. The word ' kyni- 
ing ' or ' cyniing ' was derived from ' kyn ' or ' cyn,' 
which signified ' a nation or people,' and sometimes 
' the head of the nation or people ' ; the termination 
'ing' at the end of proper nouns denoted 'the son 
of such a person,' and hence the word ' Kyniing ' 
would mean simply 'the son of the head of the na- 
tion.' It is somewhat strange that scarcely any chart- 
ers belonging to the kingdom of Northhumbria have 
survived to the present day, and hence from such 
documents we can form no idea whatever of the style 
adopted by the kings of that country. It is very 
probable, however, that they carefully maintained the 
distinction between Deira and Bernicia, which has 
been overlooked by many historians of Anglo-Saxon 
England. Hence in the case of Alcfrid we have 
every reason to suppose that he was really and virt- 
ually king over Deira, and exercised all the rights 
and jurisdictions, and had all the appanages of an 
independent sovereign. 

According to the Ecclesiastical History of the Ven- 
erable Bede, from whom, of course, I derive the chief 
part of this biography, Alfrid was one of the sons of 
Oswy, and, according to Eddie, reigned along with 
his father.(3i) 

Of the early life of Alfrid little is recorded, except 
that ' he was instructed in Christianity by Wilfrid, a 
most learned man, who had first gone to Rome to 
learn the ecclesia[s]tical doctrine.' Eddie informs us 
that he entreated Wilfrid to reside with him, and 

(31) He could not be the son of Eanfleda, for we find him mentioned 
in the year 642, x nine years before the marriage of Oswy and Eanfleda, 
and yet he appears to have been warmly attached to his mother- 
in-law, and influenced by her Christian principles. 



84 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

preach the Word of God to him and his people, and 
that Wilfrid complied with his affectionate request, 
and that they became attached to each other, even 
as the souls of David and Jonathan. Hence Alcfrid 
became attached to the customs of Rome, and thought 
that Wilfrid's doctrine ought to be preferred before 
all the traditions of the Scottish or native priests. 
Alcfrid probably became King of Deira about the 
year 650, 1 when his father Oswy slew Oswin, who was 
at that time king of that province. Of such a fact, 
however, we have no record, nor is there any record 
of the time and place of his death. So far as can 
be ascertained he disappears from history about the 
year 665, 2 *. e., nearly 1,200 years from this time. In 
the year 642 we find Alcfrid in rebellion 3 against his 
father. Oswy, having succeeded to the kingdom of 
Northhumbria, was (as Bede informs us, Lib. 3, ch. 14) 
harassed by Penda the Pagan King of Mercia, and by 
the Pagan nation of the Mercians, that had slain his 
brother, as also by his son Alcfrid, and by Ethelwald, 
the son of his brother who resigned 4 before him. (32) 
Alcfrid appears to have been firmly attached to 
Wilfrid, an able Englishman of the Roman party, 
whose attainments had been matured in southern 
Europe. He gave him a monastery of forty families 
at a place called Rhypum (Ripon) according to Bede 
(Lib. 3, ch. 25) ; which place he had not long before 

(32) Geoffrey of Monmouth (book 2, ch. 11) calls this Alfrid the 
brother of Oswy. As Geoffrey, however, did not write before the 
twelfth century (a few hundred years after Bede and the events 
narrated) we may presume that the statement of Bede is the more 
correct. From the narrative of Geoffrey we learn that this insur- 
'rection was commenced in consequence of Oswy making large presents 
of gold and silver to Cadwalla, who was at that time possessed of 
the government of all Britain, and because Oswy had made peace 
with, and submission to him. 



Maughan's Second Account, iSjj 85 

given to those that followed the [23] system of the 
Scots for a monastery ; but forasmuch as they after- 
wards, being left to their choice, prepared to quit the 
place rather than alter their religious opinions, he 
gave the place to Wilfrid. (33) From Bede's History 
of the Abbots of Weremouth we learn that Alchfrid 
was desirous to make a pilgrimage to the shrines of 
the Apostles at Rome, and had engaged Biscop to 
accompany him on his journey, who had just re- 
turned from that place ; but the King (Oswy) pre- 
vented his son's journey. At the request of Alcfrid, 
Agilbert (bishop of the West Saxons, who was on a 
visit to Oswy and Alcfrid in the province of the 
Northhumbrians) made Wilfrid a priest in his mon- 
astery at Dorchester, near Oxford. So says Bede, but 
Eddie 1 informs us that he ordained him priest at Ripon 
according to the King's command. Among the Ber- 
nicians was the episcopal seat of Hagustaldum, or 

(33) In reference to this monastery we find the following statement 
in Bede's Life of St. Cuthbert (sect. 12)—' And when some years 
after it pleased King Alcfrid, for the redemption of his soul, to give 
to the Abbot Eata a certain dominion in his kingdom called ' In 
Hrypum,' there to construct a monastery, the same Abbot taking 
some of the brethren along with him, amongst whom Cudberct was 
one, he founded the required monastery, and in it he instituted the 
same monastic discipline which he had previously established at 
Melrose.' Bede, in his history of the Abbots of Weremouth also 
says — ' Alchfrid gave Rippon to Eata, Abbot of Melross, to build a 
monastery there ; he afterwards gave this monastery to Wilfrid, and 
Eata with his monks returned to Mailros.' These statements are 
partly confirmed by Eddie in his Life of Wilfrid, who says — (ch. 8,) 
that ' Alcfrid's love for Wilfrid increased from day to day, and that 
he gave him the land of ten tributary families at Eastanford, and a 
short time afterwards the monastery In HRypis, with the land of 30 
families, for the safety of his soul, and appointed him Abbot, and that 
all the people (noble and ignoble) looked upon him as a prophet of 
God.' 



86 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

Hexham, which was bestowed by King Alcfrid 1 upon 
St. Cuthbert, which Malmesbury (somewhat mistaken 
in the scale of miles) placed but 50 miles from Yorke, 
and commendeth for 'beauty of structure before any 
building on this side the Alps.' In this church sat 
nine bishops, among whom the learned John of 
Beverley was advanced to that dignity by King Alc- 
frid, 2 and then swayed the pastoral staif, till he was 
translated to Yorke. About the year 652 (according 
to some authorities 644) we find Alcfrid and Oswy 
jointly presiding over a religious controversy 3 respect- 
ing the observance of Easter.(34) 

(34) Bede, in his account of this controversy, is considered by 
some to have been a zealous adversary of the Scottish and ancient 
British observance of Easter, and to have shewn at all points a leaning 
towards the church of Rome. Oswy, who had been instructed and 
baptized by the Scots or native priests, and was very perfectly skilled 
in their language, thought nothing better than what they taught, 
and kept the Easter festival according to the primitive British 
customs. His wife Eanfleda, however, who had been brought up 
in the Court of Kent, which had been converted to Christianity by 
missionaries from Rome, would not abandon the Kentish usages for 
those of Northhumbria, being in this probably supported by Alcfrid 
and his partizans. Hence Easter was celebrated at the Court of 
Oswy on different days ; one party enjoying its festivities, while the 
other placed in strong contrast with them the austerities of Lent. 
At length Oswy consented to purchase domestic peace by hearing 
a solemn argument in the monastery which he had recently founded 
at Whitby. The cause was conducted on the part of the British by 
Colman, then bishop of Northhumbria or Lindisfarne, assisted by 
Chad, bishop of Essex. On the part of Rome, or the Kentish usages, 
Agilbert was the principal, but he devolved the advocacy of his 
cause upon Wilfrid, on account of his own imperfect acquaintance 
with the Anglo-Saxon language. The British, or national divines, 
insisted chiefly upon a tradition, originating, as alleged, in St. John, 
our Lord's beloved disciple. The foreign party traced the Roman 
tradition to St. Peter, who was, as they said, intrusted by Christ 
with the keys of Heaven. ' Were they really intrusted to him ? ' 
asked Oswy. ' Undoubtedly so,' he was answered. ' And can 



Maugharis Second Account, iSjj 87 

Bede informs us that the Middle Angles were con- 
verted to Christianity through the instrumentality of 
Alcfrid. Peada, their king, came to Oswy, requesting 
his daughter for a wife. Oswy refused to comply 
unless he [24] would embrace the faith of Christ. 
When he heard the preaching of truth, the promise 
of the heavenly kingdom, and the hope of resurrec- 

you allege the grant of any such privilege to an authority of yours ? ' 
Oswy then demanded. ' We cannot/ Colman replied. ' I must 
leave your party then,' said Oswy, ' for I should not choose to 
disoblige him who keeps the keys of Heaven. It might be found 
impossible to get the door open when I seek admittance.' Thus 
Oswy decided in favour of the Roman party in a way which reminds 
us of the language of one of Cooper's braves of the wigwam, and his 
decision was generally applauded. The result of this controversy 
was that the ancient usages of Britain were formally renounced as 
to the time of observing Easter. Colman and many of his adherents 
were disgusted, and retired to their brethren in Scotland. 1 Eddie 
gives a brief account of this Paschal controversy in the 10th chapter. 
It may be observed, however, that this triumph of the Roman party 
involved little or no change in articles of belief. We have no evi- 
dence that any papal peculiarities of doctrine were then established. 
Mosheim (century 7, ch. 3) says: — ' In Britain warm controversies 
concerning baptism, the tonsure, and particularly the famous dispute 
concerning the time of celebrating the Easter festival, were carried 
on between the ancient Britons and the new converts to Christi- 
anity which Augustine had made among the Anglo-Saxons. The 
fundamental doctrines of Christianity were not at all affected by 
these controversies, which, on that account, were more innocent and 
less important than they otherwise would have been. Besides, they 
were entirely terminated in the 8th century, in favour of the Anglo- 
Saxons, by the Benedictine Monks. It should also be noted that 
although Wilfrid appealed to the authority of the Roman See, as 
deserving respectful attention, yet he did not claim for it any right 
of deciding the controversy. In the opin[i]on of some the Roman 
party might have prevailed before had it not been for the uncommon 
merits of Aidan and Finian, and that its prevalence on this occasion 
arose from Colman being not equal to his predecessors. A principal 
reason, however, may have been the influence which Eanfleda 
exercised over the compliant mind of her husband Oswy.' 



88 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

tion and future immortality, he declared that he would 
willingly become a Christian, even though he should 
be refused the virgin ; being chiefly prevailed on to 
receive the faith by King Oswy's son Alcfrid, who 
was his relation and friend, and had married his sister 
Cyneburga, the daughter of King Penda. Accordingly 
he was baptized with all his earls and soldiers. 

In the year 665 Alcfrid sent Wilfrid with a great 
multitude of men and much money to the King of 
France, to be consecrated bishop over him (Alcfrid) 
and his people. In Wilfrid, however, real excellencies 
appear to have been alloyed by levity and ostentation. 
He did not hasten to return after his consecration, 
but thoughtlessly displayed his new dignity amidst 
the tempting hospitalities of Gaul. Alcfrid, 1 his royal 
patron, became disgusted by this delay, and conferred 
the Northhumbrian bishopric upon another. 2 (35) 

From Bede, and others of our old British Chron- 
iclers, we find Alcfrid, in the year 655, fighting on 
the side of his father Oswy against his father-in-law 
Penda, the King of Mercia. 

Although the Pagans had three times the number 
of men, yet King Oswy, and his son Alcfrid, met 
them with a very small army, confiding, it is said, in 
the conduct of Christ, Oswy having previously vowed 
that, if he should come off victorious, he would ded- 
icate his daughter to our Lord in holy virginity, and 
give twelve farms to build monasteries. The engage- 
ment beginning, the Pagans were defeated, the thirty 
commanders, and those who had come to the assist- 
ance of Penda, were put to flight, and almost all of 
them slain. The battle was fought near the river 
Vinwed (Winwidfield), near Leeds, which then, with 

(35) Bede, Lib. 3, ch. 28. — Soames, p. 66.— William of Malmes- 
bury, Lib. 3. — Henry of Huntingdon, Lib. 3. 



Maughans Second Account, iSjj 89 

the great rains, had not only filled its channel, but 
overflowed its banks, so that many more were drowned 
in flight than destroyed by the sword.(36) 

Such is the history of Alcfrid as it has been handed 
down to us by our British historians. We may now 
take a passing glance at his supposed death. Bede 
(Lib. 3, ch. 27,) tells us that in the year 644 1 a sudden 
pestilence (called by some the yellow plague) depop- 
ulated the southern coasts of Britain, and, extending 
into the province of the Northhumbrians, ravaged the 
country far and near, and destroyed a great multitude 
of men. The pestilence did no less harm in Ireland. 
This plague is also mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon 
Chronicle under the same date ; in one of the man- 
uscripts of Nennius : and in Henry of Huntingdon 
(Lib. 3). It has been presumed that Alcfrid fell a 
victim to this plague. If so, it is not unreasonable 
to suppose that he breathed his last in his Saxon city 
of Bewcastle, and that he was buried here. Against 
this supposed cause of his death, however, we must 
bear in mind that, in the year 665, 2 i. e., the year after 
the plague. Bede informs us that Alcfrid sent Wil- 
frid to France for consecration, and a similar state- 
ment had been previously made by Eddie. (37) 

(36) Henry of Huntingdon (Lib. 3), speaking of this battle, says 
that ' the Almighty God was present with His people, and dissolved 
the fortitude of King Penda, and took away from his arms the usual 
strength of his nerves, and ordered his brave heart to pine with 
grief, so that he neither recognized himself in his blows, nor was he 
impenetrable to the arms of his enemies : and he was amazed that his 
enemies were such as he used to be to his enemies, while on the other 
hand he was such as they used to be. He, who therefore had always 
shed the blood of others, now experienced what he himself had done, 
while he tinged the earth with his own blood, and covered it with 
his brains.' 

(37) Henry of Huntingdon (Lib. 3), and Bede, both relate that 
Tuda, the Bishop of Northumbria, fell a victim to its ravages, but 



go Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

[25] Hwcetred. 

The preceding sketch embraces every thing which 
I can find recorded in history respecting Alcfrid. 
Besides the names of Oswy and Alcfrid, the words 
Hwaetred, Waethgar, and Alwfwolthu seem to require 
a slight notice, as they resemble Anglo-Saxon names 
which we find recorded in history. 

The word Hwaetred is compounded of ' hwaet, wit, 
with, or wiht ' — ' quick or sharp ; ' — and of ' red, 
rede, rad, or rod,' (differing only in dialect), signify- 
ing ' counsel.' Hence Hwaetred means ' quick in 
counsel.' The word ' Hwaetred ' occurs in the Codex 
Exoniensis, 477, 5, in a poem called ' The Ruin.' 
Thorpe translates it as an adjective. Ethmuller, 1 in 
his Dictionary, gives the word as a proper name. A 
person named Withred, or Wihtred, is mentioned by 
Henry of Huntingdon (Lib. 4), and by the Anglo- 
Saxon Chronicle, as King of Kent in the year 692. 
Higden mentions him as King in the year 686, and 

neither of them state that such was the death of King Alcfrid ; 
a strong presumption that the king did not perish in this plague. 
St. Chad is also said to have been taken with the contagion while on a 
visit to his beloved solitude of Lestingau, which put an end to his 
mortal life. Bede, in his life of St. Cuthbert, tells us that ' this 
great pestilence, which made such havoc in Britain and Ireland, 
visited also the monastery of Mailros, where St. Cuthbert was seized 
with it. All the brethren passed the night in prayer for him, as 
looking upon the life of so holy a man most necessary for the edi- 
fication of their community. In the morning they told him what 
they had been doing : at which, rising up, he called for his shoes and 
his staff, saying — ' Why do I he here any longer ; God will certainly 
hear the prayers of so many holy men.' And so it was ; for he quickly 
recovered.' It is also said that Boisil had foretold this plague three 
years before, and that he himself should die of it, which came to pass. 
(Ibid.) It seems strange, therefore, that so many deaths should be 
detailed, and yet that there should be no record of the death of King 
Alcfrid, if he perished in this plague. 



Maughan's Second Account, iS/7 91 

calls him ' Whitred,' the legitimate son of Egbert. 
This person may possibly be the party whose name 
is here recorded. At all events he appears to have 
entertained religious views and aspirations similar to 
those of Alcfrid. Queen Eantieda had been brought 
up at the Court of Kent, and was sent for by Oswy 
in the year 651, 1 and became his wife. This Witred, 
who might at that time be one of the young 
princes 2 at that Court, may have attended her on her 
marriage journey to Northhumbria, or may have 
visited the Northumbrian Court at some subsequent 
period, and thus have formed an attachment to 
Alcfrid, and afterwards erected this Cross to his 
memory. 

Wcsthgar. 

This word is derived from ' with,' — ' quick or sharp' 
— and ' gar or gajr ' — ' a spear ' : hence it signifies 
' quick or expert in the use of the spear.' It may 
be also a proper name. A person named ' Wihtgar ' 
(the h before the t) is mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon 
Chronicle, anno 514, as Lord of the Isle of Wight. 
He was the first to establish an Anglo-Saxon colony 
there. He also was the founder of Carisbrooke Castle. 
Camden (p. 130,) says that it was called ' Whitgara- 
burgh," from him, and now by contraction ' Cares- 
brook.' Of course he cannot be the person whose 
name is recorded on this monument, but we may 
draw an inference that such a name was in use among 
the Anglo-Saxons. 

Alfwold. 

1 Aelf.' which, according to various dialects, as 
Camden says, is pronounced ' ulf, wolph, hulph, hilp, 
helfe, or helpe,' implies ' assistance.' ' Wold or 
wald ' means ' a ruler or governor.' Hence the word 



92 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

Alfwold means ' an auxiliary governor.' But it may 
also be a proper noun, occurring under a variety of 
modes of spelling.(38) William of Malmesbury men- 
tions a King of the East Angles named ' Elwold ' 
soon after the time of Alcfrid, who might possibly 
be the person mentioned here. 1 Bede says that Sige- 
bert, the King of the East Angles, often visited the 
Court of Northhumbria, and was converted to the 
Christian faith in a.d. 653, through the persuasion of 
Oswy. This Elwold may have attended Sigebert on 
some of these occasions, and thus have become ac- 
quainted with, and attached to Alcfrid, and hence 
from motives of friendship and regard he may have 
aided in erecting this pillar to his memory. 

We may now return to a further examination of 
the Cross. Below the chief inscription is a figure, 
which, as Bishop Nicholson says, 'represents the 
portraiture of a layman with a hawk or eagle perched 

(38) In Ingram's Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, A. D. 778, we find' 
' Alfwold ' mentioned as a King of Northhumbria, and a note upon 
this passage says ' Alfold. Cot.' Again in a. d. 780, we find him 
called ' Alwold,' and a note says, ' A elf wold Lands.' In 789 he 
died and was buried at Hexham. Higden says that he was slain 
by his own people. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle also mentions a 
person of the name of ' Alfwold ' as bishop of Dorset, who died in 
A. D. 978. Henry of Huntingdon mentions one ' Owlfhold ' about 
A. D. 910. A King of the East Angles is mentioned by Roger de 
Hoveden as dying A. D. 749, whom he calls ' Elfwald.' He also 
uses the word ' Elwald,' ' Alfwald,' and ' Elf wold.' In the Anglo- 
Saxon Charters we find this name with the Latin terminations- 
' dus ' and ' thus,' and their several inflections. Hence we have 
Alwfwolthu as an Anglo-Saxon corruption of Alwfwolthus or Alwf- 
wolthum. We often find the Latin termination dropped entirely, and 
the word ending in ' wald or wold.' The first syllable occurs in 
the Anglo-Saxon Charters under various modes of spelling. We 
find ' Alf, Elf, Olf, 2Elf; ' and in a charter 2 of Eadwig (a.d. 956, 
Ms. Lands. 417, fol. 11, b.) we have the name ' Alwlf,' which has; 
a great resemblance to the orthography of the Bewcastle Cross. 



Maughans Second Account, iSjy 93 

on his arm.' [26] Hutchinson describes it as ' the 
effigies of a person of some dignity, in a long robe 
to the feet, but without any dress or ornament on 
the head : on a pedestal against which this figure 
leans is a bird, which, we conceive, is a raffen, or 
raven, the insignia of the Danish standard. This fig- 
ure seems designed to represent the personage for 
whom the monument was erected, and though ac- 
companied with the raven, bears no other marks of 
royal dignity.' In Lysons it is thus spoken of: 'At 
the bottom on the west side is sculptured, in bas- 
relief, the figure of a man bareheaded, habited in a 
gown which reaches to the middle of his legs, hold- 
ing a bird (most probably a hawk) on his hand, just 
above its perch.' To these nearly correct observa- 
tions of the Lysons I would only add that the figure 
is not bare headed, but appears to be covered with 
something resembling a close hood. 

South Side. 

The sculpture on the south side is divided into five 
compartments. In the bottom, central, and top divis- 
ions are magical knots. In the second are two vines 
intersecting each other, and in the fourth is another 
vine, in one of the curves of which a vertical sun- 
dial has been placed, somewhat resembling the dial 
placed over the Saxon porch on the south side of 
Bishopstone Church, in Sussex, and also resembling 
the Saxon dial placed over the south porch of Kirk- 
dale Church, in the North Riding of Yorkshire : a 
short description of each of which may be found at 
page 60 of the eleventh volume of the Archaeological 
Journal. In the Bewcastle Dial the principal divisions 
are marked by crosses, as on the fore-mentioned dials, 
which are considered examples of a very early date, 

g2 



94 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

the Kirkdale Dials having been made, as it is sup- 
posed, between the years 1056 and 1065. 

On the plain surface near the top of the Cross we 
have the following characters : — 




llib 



LICE 



The word ' lie ' or ' lice ' is very distinct, but of 
the remaining letters we have only the lower part. 
On the east side of the Cross, where the sentence 
has probably been continued and completed, this plain 
surface is totally gone so as to leave no traces what- 
ever, so that this part of the inscription may be con- 
sidered as irreparably lost. The word 'lie,' or 'lice,' 
may perhaps be intended to express something re- 
specting ' a dead body.' In the Dream of the Holy 
Rood (Archseologia, vol. 30, p. 31,) the word ' lices ' 
occurs, and signifies the corpse of our Saviour. The 
word ' lice ' may also be part of the word ' liceman ' 1 
— a body. 

Between the highest and the next compartment are 
traces of letters which I read thus : — 



nmm 



E C G F R I [THU] 

i. e.,' of Ecgfrid.' Ecgfrid was the son of Oswy, and 
brother of Alchfrid, and succeeded his father in the 
kingdom of Northhumbria in the year 670, according 
to the Ang. Sax. Chronicle. Eddie (ch. 20) speaks 
of him as king of both Deira and Bernicia. In the 
year 660 he married Etheldrida, the daughter of Anna, 



Maughan's Second Account, iSjy 95 

king of the East Angles, who lived with him 12 years, 
and at last retired as a nun into the monastery of the 
Abbess Edda (the aunt of Ecgfrid) at Coludi (Cold- 
ingham), Berwickshire. Egfrid afterwards married 
Ermenburga. Eddie says that while Etheldrida lived 
with him he was triumphant everywhere, but after 
the separation he ceased to be victorious. 

Egfrid appears to have been instrumental in found- 
ing the monasteries at Wearmouth and Jarrow. (39) 

In 685 Egfrid rashly led his army to ravage the 
province of the Picts, much [27] against the advice 
of his friends, and particularly of Cuthbert, who had 
lately been appointed Bishop of Hexham by him. 
The enemy made show as if they fled, and the king 
was drawn into the straits of inaccessible mountains 
and slain, with the greatest part of his forces. Eg- 
frid is said to have carried his conquests to the west- 
ern ocean, and held Cumberland as a tributary prov- 
ince of his kingdom. 

Between the second and third divisions (from the 
top) of the decorated parts of the Cross we find 
traces of Runes, which I venture to read thus : — 



iwwp 



RICES [THjyES: 

(39) Bede, in his history of the Abbots of Weremouth, says that 
he bestowed on Biscop, of his own possessions, as much land as might 
maintain 70 families, ordering him to build thereon a monastery, 
which was accordingly performed. This monastery was built at 
the mouth of the river Were (thence called Weremouth) in the year 
674. The king was so well pleased with the zeal and industry of 
Biscop, and with the fruits which began plentifully to spring from 
this pious foundation, that he afterwards added to his former donation 
a second gift of lands, on which Biscop built another monastery 
on the opposite side of the same river. This was the monastery 
of Jarrow. These monasteries were destroyed by the Danes, but 
a small priory was afterwards established at Jarrow. 



9 6 



Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 



i. e., ' of this kingdom,' — the kingdom of Northhumbria. 
Between the third and fourth divisions we also find 
traces of characters : 



ftRtlwMH 



thus-KYNINGES, 1 i. e., 'King.' 

Between the lowest and second compartment is 
another line of Runes which has been noticed by 
Spelman and others as previously described. I would 
suggest that the line may be read thus : — 



lIIiMlil^ 



+ F R U[MA]N GEAR, 2 

i. e., ' in the first year.' The four lines on this side 
of the Cross are evidently connected with each other, 
and are to be read thus : — ' fruman gear Ecgfrithu 
kyninges rices thses,' — in the first year (of the reign) of 
Egfrid, king of this kingdom of Northhumbria, 3 i. e., a.d. 
670, in which year we may conclude that this monu- 
ment was erected. 

The form of date used on this monument may be 
considered rather peculiar. Some are of opinion 
(perhaps without sound grounds) that the era of the 
Incarnation was not introduced into England till the 
time of Bede, i. e., about a century after the erection 
of this pillar. It is a remarkable fact that we have 
only two original charters of the seventh century, and 
that the date of the Incarnation does not appear in 
either of these documents. We cannot infer, how- 
ever, from this fact that such a mode of dating was 
then unknown. This would be pushing an argument 
to an unjust conclusion. Such an inference would 



Manghan s Second Account, iSjy 97 

be an abuse of the rules of logic. It may be re- 
marked, however, that the mode of dating by the 
regnal years of the kings was frequently adopted, as 
must be well known to every one conversant in Anglo- 
Saxon diplomacy ; and I think there can be little 
question but such a mode has been adopted on this 
monument. 

North Side. 

On the north side are also five compartments oc- 
cupied by sculpture. In the highest and lowest divis- 
ions we find vines with foliage and fruit. Mr. Smith 
considers them ; as probably the Danish symbols of 
fertility, as Amalthea's horn was among the Greeks.' 
In the second and fourth divisions are two curiously 
devised, and intricately twisted knots, often called 
' magical knots,' and by some considered the ' knot- 
work of Scottish and Irish sculptors.' The third di- 
vision is filled with a quantity of chequerwork.(4o) 

(40) This chequerwork is pronounced by Mr. Smith to be 'a 
Scythian method of embellishing funeral ornaments' ; and is regarded 
by Bishop Nicholson ' as a notable emblem of the tumuli or burying 
places of the Ancients.' Camden says — ' Seeing the cross is 
chequered like the arms of Vaux, we may suppose that it has been 
erected by some of them.' Hutchinson 1 thinks that ' the cross must 
of necessity be allowed to bear a more ancient date than any of the 
remains of that name ; which cannot be run up higher than the 
Conquest.' He also thinks that ' armorial bearings were not in 
use at the same time as the Runic characters.' It is probable, 
however, that this chequerwork had no reference to the family of 
Vaux or De Vallibus, as they were not really and legally possessed 
of the Lordship of Bewcastle until the reign of Henry the Second, 
or about the middle of the 12th century, which is too late a period 
for the decoration of this monument. The late ingenious Mr. Howard 
suggested that ' very possibly the family of De Vallibus took their 
arms from this column, being one of the most remarkable things in 
the barony.' The cheque appears to have been a device used by 
the Gauls and Britons long before the erection of this cross. The 
Gaulic manufactory of woollen cloth spoken of by Diodorus (Lib. 5), 



98 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

[28] Immediately above the lowest compartment is 
one line of Runic characters of which Bishop Nichol- 
son in his letter to Mr. Walker says, ' Upon first 
sight of these letters I greedily ventured to read them 
' Rynburn ' x ; and I was wonderfully pleased to fancy 
that this word thus singly written must necessarily 
betoken the final extirpation, and burial of the magical 
Runae, in these parts, reasonably hoped on the con- 
version of the Danes to the Christian faith.' The 
learned prelate also conjectured that the word might 
be 'Ryeeburn,' 1 which he takes in the old Danish 
language to signify ' a burial place of the dead.' The 
representation of these Runes given by the Bishop 
is inaccurate, and he has evidently comprehended in 
it some of the flutings of the pillar. It is difficult to 
imagine how the Bishop could fall into such an error, 
for the letters on this side of the monument are still 
perfect and legible, having been fortunately preserved 

and in Pliny's Natural History (Lib. 8, ch. 48), was woven chequer- 
wise, of which our Scottish plaids are perfect remains. Bishop 
Anselm's 2 Book concerning ' Virginity,' written about the year 
680 — the era of the cross nearly — when the art of weaving in this 
country was probably in a comparatively rude state, contains a 
distinct indication that chequered robes were then in fashion ; and 
many of the figures in Rosselini's Egyptian work are dressed in che- 
quered cloths. The cheques are still retained in common use to 
this day among the inhabitants of Wales, the descendants of the an- 
cient Britons : and so great is their veneration for their ancient 
emblem that whenever a Welchman leaves his native mountains 
to reside in an English town, he is sure to carry this symbol along 
with him. Shops with the sign of the chequers were common even 
among the Romans, as is evident from the views of Pompeii present- 
ed by Sir W. Hamilton to the Antiquarian Society. A human figure 
in a chequered robe is sculptured on the side of an altar which was 
found in digging a cellar for the Grapes Inn, on the site of the Roman 
Station at Carlisle, thus establishing the probability that the cheque 
was used among the Romans in Britain. We read also of nets of 
chequer- work in the days of King Solomon, 1 Kings, vii., 17. 



Matighan's Second Account, jSjj 



99 



from the effects of the weather by their proximity to 
the Church, which has afforded them its friendly shelt- 
er j 1 and in the manuscript journal which the Bishop 
kept of his visitation in 1703 the Runes are more 
correctly traced by him. 2 

Mr. Smith dissents from the reading of the Bishop, 
and rather thinks it to be a sepulchral monument of 
the Danish kings. He reads it " Kuniburuk,' which, 
he says, in the old Danish language, imports ' the 
burial place of a king.' Mr. Smith, however, agrees 
with the Bishop that it may also have been designed 
for a standing monument of conversion to Christianity 
which might have happened on the loss of their king, 
and each be mutually celebrated by it. But from the 
inscription on the west side it does not appear to have 
been intended for anything more than a memorial cross. 

Mr. Kemble, with Mr. Howard's plate as a guide, 3 who 
traced it thus, 



rM.w?nm 



pronounced the word to be ' Cyniburug ' or ' Cyni- 
buruk.' 4 the proper name of a lady ; and he attached 
some value to it as proving the inscription Anglo- 
Saxon — not Norse. 5 

After repeated and careful examinations the letters 
appear to me to be — 



fWM&hfaftK 



KYNNBUR(THU)G, 

the name of the wife of Alchfrid. Eddie, who wrote 
about fifty years after the erection of the cross, does 
not mention the name of Alcfrid's queen ; but in 
Stephenson's edition of Bede 6 (who probably wrote his 



ioo Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

history about ioo years 1 after the erection of the monu- 
ment) we read of a lady whom he calls ' Cyneburga,' the 
daughter of Penda, King of Mercia, and the wife of 
Alcfrid. This is undoubtedly the same person, the name 
having somewhat changed in a century. In Ingram's 
edition of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, in the year 656, 
we read of 'Kyneburg' and ' Kynesuuith,' the daughters 
of King Penda, and the sisters of Wulfhere who in 
that year is said to have succeeded his brother Peada 
in the kingdom of the Mercians. These ladies appear 
to have counselled their brother Wulfhere to endow 
and dignify the monastery at Medehamstede,(4i) which 
in the year 963 was named Peterborough, and in that 
year we read in the above-named chronicle that 
Elfsy, who was then Abbot, took up the bodies of St. 
Kyneburh and St. Kyneswith, who lay at Castor, and 
brought them to Peterborough.^) 



(41) It may appear strange that Wulfhere should have adopted 
the counsel of his sisters, but it must be borne in mind that the ladies 
were very important personages in the days of our Anglo-Saxon 
forefathers. Gurdon, in his Antiquities of Parliament, says — ' The 
ladies of birth and quality sat in council with the Saxon Witas.' 
The abbess Hilda, says Bede, presided in an ecclesiastical Synod. 
In Wighfred's great council at Becconceld, A. D. 694, the abbesses 
sat and deliberated ; and five of them signed decrees of the council. 

(42) William of Malmesbury (Lib. 1, ch. 4) tells us that Cyneberg 
retired to the monastery which her brothers Wulfhere and Ethelred 
had built, and that she and her sister Kyneswith were superior to 
others of their sex for the piety and chastity of their lives. Henry 
of Huntingdon (Lib. 3) calls this lady Chineburgam, and her sister 
Cinewissem. Ingulph of Croyland calls her Kynenburgam, and says 
that she and her sister were ' ambas sancta continentia praecellentes.' 
Kyneburg appears to have made large presents to the monastery at 
Medehamstede, for when it was destroyed by the Danes, A. d. 870, 
Ingulph says that ' the precious gifts ' of the holy virgins Kineburgae 
and Kinespitae were trodden under foot ; and in another passage he 
calls these gifts ' sacredrelics, ' and says that the Abbot took them 



Maugharis Second Account, iSjy 101 

[29] In the 'Britannia Sancta 1 Cyneburg is spoken 
of as a devout and fervent Christian, whose heart 
was much more set on the kingdom of heaven than 
on her earthly diadem : insomuch that she had an 
impatient desire to quit the world and all its vanities, 
and to consecrate herself, body and soul, to Jesus 
Christ. By her means, in a short time, King Alch- 
frid's Court was converted in a manner into a mon- 
astery, or school of regular discipline and Christian 
perfection. After her release from the matrimonial 
bond by the death of her husband she returned into 
her native country of Mercia, and there chose for the 
place of her retreat a town then called Dormundcaster, 
afterwards from her Kyneburgcastor — now Castor or 
Caistor. Here she built, or (as others say) found al- 
ready built by her brother Wulfhere, a monastery for 
sacred virgins, over whom she became mother and 
abbess. To this monastery, as we learn from the 
author of her life in Capgrave, many virgins of all 
ranks and degrees resorted, to be instructed by her 
in rules and exercises of a religious life ; and whilst 
the daughters of princes reverenced her as a mistress, 
the poor were admitted to regard her as a companion : 
and both the one and the other honoured her as a 
parent. She was, says this author, a mirror of all 
sanctity. She had a wonderful compassion and char- 
ity for the poor, exhorting kings and princes to alms- 
giving and works of mercy. Henschenius is positive 
that she died before the year 680, but Higden says 
that she was appointed over the Monastery of Glovernia 
in 681. 



away with him in his flight. Ranulph Higden (Lib. 5, Anno 681) 
says thatOsric, King of the Mercians, built a monastery de Glovernia, 1 
over which he appointed his sister Kineburgam. 



102 



Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 



Kyneswitha. 
Between the second and third compartments (from 
the bottom) is another very indistinct line of Runes 
which I venture to read thus — 



wmmm 



KYNESWIfTHJA 1 

This was the name of the mother as well as a sister 2 
of Cyneburg. Of the mother, nothing of note is re- 
corded. From the two sisters being so frequently 
mentioned together, and from the similarity of their 
religious views and feelings, we may presume that 
they were strongly attached to each other, and that 
the sister's name is recorded here. William of Malmes- 
bury (Lib. 4) says that she was dedicated to God 
from her infancy, and that she kept her glorious res- 
olution to her old age. Not content with saving 
herself alone, she prevailed also with King Offa, to 
whom she had (against her will) been promised in 
marriage, to devote himself to a single life. She after- 
wards retired to the Monastery of Dormundcaster, 
where she died, ' after having lived a pattern of all 
virtues for many years.' 

Wulfhere. 
Between the third and fourth compartments is another 
line of Runes which, though indistinct, appears to be — 



flMterf» 



MYRCNA KYNG, 3 
*. e., King of the Mercians. 



Maugharis Second Account, iSjj 103 

The above line of Runes appears to be connected 
with another line between the fourth and fifth divis- 
ions, which may be read thus — 



HWNMKM 



WULFHERE, 1 

who was a son of Penda, brother of Cyneburg, and 
King of the Mercians. He succeeded his brother Peada 
in the year 657, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chron- 
icle.(43) 

[30] Eddie calls him Wlfarius, and says that he 
frequently invited Wilfrid (while Abbot at Ripon) to 
go into Mercia, and exercise the office of bishop there, 
and that he made many grants of lands, for the 
salvation of his soul, where he presently appointed 
monasteries. In the year 661 we find him instrumental 
in converting the people of the Isle of Wight : and 
in the year 665 he was a means of the reconversion 
of the East Saxons, who had begun to restore the 
temples that had been abandoned, and to adore idols, 

(43) He is respresented by Malmesbury as a man of great strength 
of mind and body, and although a zealous Christian yet his reputation 
was sullied by an act of simony, being the first of the kings of the 
Angles who sold the bishopric of London. In the year 657 we find 
him engaged in the foundation and endowment of the monastery of 
Medehamstede. He is said to have granted large tracts of lands and 
fens to this monastery. From the Life of his Queen Ermenilda in 
Capgrave, we learn that he was induced, through her influence, 
to root out of his dominions, the worship of idols, and all heathenish 
superstitions ; and to stock his kingdom with priests and churches 
for the worship of the true and living God. He is also said to have 
contributed liberally towards the foundation of a monastery for 
religious virgins at Wenlock in Shropshire. He also by his bounty 
enabled Bishop Chadd to found a monastery at a place called Barrow, 
in the province of Lindsey. 



104 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

as if they might by those means be protected against 
the mortality, i. e., the yellow plague. According to 
the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in the year 675, Wulfhere 
and Escwin fought at Beadanhead ; and the same year 
Wulfhere died. 

On the plain surface near the top of the Cross are 
the following characters : 




The three Crosses may be emblematical of the cru- 
cifixion, the central one appearing rather higher than 
the others. The word ' Gessus ' is very plain, all 
the letters being quite distinct except the G, and the 
part where the U and the S approach each other, which 
appears to have experienced some injury. (44) 

The word ' Gessus ' is evidently connected with 
the fragments of the word ' Kristtus ' on the west 
side ; and has probably formed part of a sentence 
which has been completed on the two other sides, 
but of which only a small portion now remains. 

Having made this minute and, I fear, tedious attempt 
to explain the inscriptions on this cross, I may now 
leave the subject in the hands of those who are more 
versed in such recondite researches, hoping that if 
there be another and a better solution of the enigma, 
it may be found. 

(44) The letter S has a little peculiarity in its form, the last stroke 
being carried up nearly to the same height as the top of the other 
letters. The letter S in the word ' Oswiuing ' appears to have the 
same form ; as also some others on this monument ; and there is 
one somewhat similar to it on the Ruthwell pillar. There is also 
an S of a similar form in the Runic inscription in Carlisle Cathedral. 



Maugharis Second Account, iSjy 105 

[31J MR. HAIGH'S VERSION. 

It is now my painful duty to make a few observa- 
tions on a different version of these inscriptions, which 
has been offered by the Rev. D. H. Haigh, of Erd- 
ington, near Birmingham, read before the Society of 
Antiquarians of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and since pub- 
lished in their transactions. I feel extreme reluctance 
in entering upon this course, but I also feel that I have 
been driven into it through the officiousness of certain 
parties, the patrons of Mr. Haigh's version. Mr. Robert 
White, 1 to whom I have already alluded, in a letter to 
the Gateshead Observer, dated Oct. 29, 1856, after 
acknowledging his own ignorance of Runes, throws out 
an insinuation that I am equally ignorant of the language 
and its characters. In a paper on Runes, read at the 
January meeting, 1856, of the Antiquarian Society, at 
Newcastle, Dr. Charlton introduced Mr. Haigh's version, 
and then alluded to one which had been suggested by 
myself, and although Dr. Charlton had never seen the 
Bewcastle pillar, and consequently could have had no 
opportunity of comparing either version with the original, 
yet he expressed an opinion that the version of Mr. 
Haigh was ' the more probable of the two, and nearer 
the truth.' 2 Other insinuations have been made against 
my version by parties who know nothing of the Runic 
language. I feel, therefore, called upon to enter into 
a minute detail, and to adopt a course which I should 
not have thought of adopting under other circumstances. 

My first acquaintance with Mr. Haigh arose from a 
letter which I received from him, in which he requested 
me to send him a rubbing of the chief inscription. In 
this letter, amongst other things, he stated that he 
had a ' suspicion that the long inscription, and one 
of the others, present us with the name of a king of 



106 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

Northumberland,' without however mentioning his name. 
In my reply, promising him a rubbing, I asked him 
whether Alfrid was the Northumberland king to whom 
he alluded ; my attention having from an early period 
been directed to Alfrid, from the suggestion made by 
Mr. Howard 1 to the Antiquarian Society, and from a 
communication I received from another party in 1852 
respecting Cyneburg, and also from Kemble's obser- 
vations on this name. 

In reply, he stated that he expected to find the 
name of Alcfrid, and also the name of Sighard, or 
Sigfrid, in the chief inscription. In another letter he 
said that he also expected to find the name of Alfrid 
in the bottom line on the south side, but before he 
came to the end of this letter he stated that a new 
suspicion had come across his mind, that the bottom line 
of the south 2 was more probably ' Oswiu Kyningk.' He 
had not then seen any rubbing of this line, and con- 
sequently his reading was merely guessing. 

I made a rubbing of the chief inscription, partly 
according to the process already described, except 
that (according to his instruction) it was made with 
two sheets of brown paper, placed one above the other, 
instead of one of thin white. The paper was thus too 
thick for such shallow letters and marks, and the 
rubbing was very confused, unintelligible, and illegible 
even by myself when standing by it, and making it, 
and having a tolerable idea of the letters beforehand. 
Having a lurking suspicion that his intentions were 
not altogether of a pure and disinterested character, 
I took special care that the rubbing should not be 
perfect and satisfactory in those parts where I had 
not decided as to the correct reading. 

In acknowledging the receipt of this rubbing of the 
chief inscription, he said — ' all traces of impressions 



Manghan's Second Account, i8jj 107 

are effaced.'' He felt satisfied however '■that perfect im- 
pressions would enable him to read every letter ' — ' that 
he should have no difficulty in reading the whole if he 
could once get good impressions.'' But then here was 
the principal difficulty which every person has hitherto 
experienced who has made the slightest attempt to 
decipher these inscriptions. 

Mr. Haigh stated in direct terms that ' all traces of 
impressions were effaced." 1 After such a plain statement 
few persons would suppose that he would ever [32] 
attempt to impose a version of this inscription (from 
such a rubbing) either upon the Society of Antiquarians 
at Newcastle, or at any other place. Few persons, 
however, it would seem have any idea how sanguine 
some antiquarians become, and what confidence they 
assume in their own powers of success. In a few 
days he did actually give, and without the least hesitation, 
a version of this long-lost inscription. 

Within a fortnight after he had stated that all im- 
pressions were effaced, I received a letter from him 
saying that he could read the whole of them ; that he felt 
quite sure of most of them, and that the name of Roetbert 
was most interesting, because the monumental inscription 
to his memory had been found at Falstone, not far from 
Bewcastle. This, however, of course proved nothing. 
There might have been fifty stones found with the 
name of Roetbert inscribed upon them, and yet it 
would not follow that the fifty-first would necessarily 
have the same name upon it. In his letter, he gave 
me a part of his version, which commenced with the 
words ' thaes sigbecun.' I wrote to him by return 
of post stating that I had sometimes thought that the 
inscription might commence with ' a cross ' and the 
word 'this,' and stated some reasons both for and 
against it. I also stated some objections to the latter 

h 



108 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

part of his word ' sigbecun ' ; more especially the 
letter C, inasmuch as I could not find that his traces 
of this letter corresponded with the marks now re- 
maining on the stone. A reading somewhat similar 
had been proposed long before I knew of the exist- 
ence of such a person as Mr. Haigh. 

In a few days I received another letter from him, 
which I thought to be of a somewhat snappish char- 
acter. He said ' the last letter of the first line is 

certainly OC> i. e., C or K 1 .' This word 'certainly' 

shows at least great confidence in his own power of 
reading the rubbings, especially when we recollect 
that he had so shortly before stated that ' all traces 
of impressions were effaced.' He said the letter C 
or K, of the form given by him, was found also on 
the Ruthwell pillar, which, however, I do not look 
upon as any proof that this form of the letter should 
occur on the Bewcastle pillar also. J have since very 
carefully examined the Ruthwell pillar, and I can find 
no letter upon it of the form given by him. There is no 
such letter given in the accurate drawings of the Ruth- 
well pillar by Dr. Duncan, and I have no hesitation 
in stating that when Mr. Haigh said that the letter C 
or K, of the form given by him, was found on the 
Ruthwell pillar, he was speaking without due caution.. 
I now assert, without the least fear of contradiction, that no 
such letter occurs either on the Ruthwell, or the Bewcastle 
pillar. 

He also sent me in another letter his reading of 
another rubbing which I had sent him. The bottom 
line of the south side, which I read + FRU(MA)NGEAR 
is read by him OSWU CYN(ING) ELT, i. e., Oswy 
King the elder — 'elf perhaps for ' aelter,' the elder 
or head of the family. 



Maugharis Second Account, i8jj 109 



MAWMKfl 



He says that he was puzzled with this line at first, 
the rubbing was so black, but when he looked at the back 
of the rubbing he could read the impression of the letters 
distinctly. He had in fact (as appeared from one of 
his former letters) formed his own convictions as to 
this reading by anticipation, i. e., before he had seen 
the rubbing of it ; and rather than acknowledge him- 
self either beaten or in error, he professes to read it by 
the back of the paper where there never was any rubbing 
at all. It is evident that by such a mode any person 
would be capable of reading anything, or everything, 
just as his fancy might suggest. The first two letters 
of this line (the F and the R) are perfect ; as well 
marked as any letters on the stone. They are letters 
about which I never experienced any doubt or dif- 
ficulty, being distinctly visible at a considerable dist- 
ance as soon as the moss was removed. He converts 

the letter y — F — into an v\ — S— thus rejecting marks 

which are quite plain, and substituting marks where 
none are visible : and by rejecting the tail of the 

letter R — R — he contrives to convert it into the 

letter P — W. Some of the other letters in this line 

are not so plain and distinctly legible. 

[33] The following was his version of the long in- 
scription. I shall place mine by its side. The latter 
part of the woodcut represents his improved reading. 



h2 



HO Some Accounts of fhe Bewcastk Cross 

Maughan's. Haigh's. 



mmm 



7\y m\i it »■:■*:■ 



mttPHNn 



-f [TH]ISSIG:B[EA]CN : 

[THUjN : SETTON : H 

W[;ET]RED: W[^TH] 

GAR: ALWFWOL 

[THU]:AFT:ALCFRI 

[THU] : EAN : CYNI[ING] : 

EAC:OSWIU[ING]: 

-f GEBID:HE 

O: SINNA : SAW[HU]LA. 



+ [TH]IS:SIGBEC 
UN: SETT/E:H 
W^ETRED :WIT 
G^ER:FLWOLD 
U:ROETB[ER]T: 
VMM : CYN[ING] ; 
ALCFRI[THJ^] : G 
EGID/ED: 
HISSUM:SAULE. X 



He says — ' If we find two false spellings in this in- 
scription — Flwold for Felwold, and Gegidaed, for Ge- 
bidaed, I can only say that from my experience of 
other inscriptions I only wonder there are not more. 
We have even in this monument three other inscrip- 
tions, and every line of them is blundered.' Thus 
it appears every thing must succumb to his concep- 
tions of right and wrong. He even professes to know 
better how things should have been 1200 years ago 
than the person who wrote the inscriptions, who, ac- 
cording to the general opinion as to the origin of 



Maug han's Second Account, 1S3J ill 

such Runic inscriptions, would be one of the learned 
ecclesiastics of that day. His version thus comprehends 
two false spellings and three other blundered inscriptions , 
while my version requires nothing of the kind. His 
reading was as follows : — -}- This sigbecun settae 
Hwsetred Witgaer Flwoldu Roetbert umse Cyning Alc- 
frithae. Gegidaed hissum saule, i. e., ' Hwastred, Wit- 
gaer, Felwold, and Roetbert set up this beacon of vic- 
tory in memory of Alcfrid. Pray for his soul.' 

Soon after he sent me his reading, [34] he wrote 
to me again, requesting me to enter upon all the 
trouble of making another set of rubbings for him at 
the inclement season of the new year — rubbings not 
only of the same parts which I had done before for 
him — but of some other parts — with fresh instructions 
as to the mode of proceeding, stating at the same 
time that his reading would be found to be correct. 
Before he could receive any answer from me, he 
arrived at Bewcastle. He immediately commenced mak- 
ing rubbings for himself, but after attempting in two 
or three places he gave it up— on what grounds he 
did not state. He then began to examine the stone 
with his eye and his finger. I shall now present the 
reader with a short review of his readings, and his own 
exposition of them, taken from a memorandum made 
as soon as he left. 

As to the word ' sigbecun ' he said that the letter 

C was made thus — ^|^ — ? an d showed me where 

the tracings of the letter had been, of which, how- 
ever, I could not see the least relic now, and which 
did not at all correspond with the traces which were 
actually to be seen on the stone. The lower side 

— mark of my compound letter \^* — EA — before my 
letter C, which is one of the best and deepest marks 



112 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

on the stone, which has evidently a connection with 

the letter E before it, but no visible connection with 

* ... 

the letter C following it — this mark he said was the 

angular loop of his letter C. Being anxious to hear 
his opinions and explanations of the other parts of 
the stone, I did not venture to make any observations 
of an opposing nature, judging it most prudent to 
allow him to proceed when he was in a commun- 
icative humour. I merely observed, however, as it 
were casually, that there was a good trace of the side 

stroke of the letter L — C — rather different from what 

he read it. He said peremptorily — 'it was a blot.' 
He thus rejects the two perpendicular strokes of my 
letters C and N, which are very perfectly defined, and 
which have no break in the middle, as his letter C 
would require, and adopts a letter of which I cannot 
see full and satisfactory traces. He stated that my 

letter k — C — was not in use at the time when this 

Cross was erected, but that the character as given by 
him was always used for a C. Where he gets this 
information from I know not — neither can I conceive 
how he can speak with authority on such a matter, 
when it has been hitherto a very doubtful and disputed 
point whether there were any Anglo-Saxon Runes at 
all at that period. Besides this word ' beacn ' I find the 

letter Jl — for a C — in the words ' Alcfrithu, eac, myrcna, 

lice, Ecgfrithu, and rices.' In the words ' Kynnburthug, 
Kyneswitha, — Kyng, Kristtus, Kyniing, and Kyninges.' 
I find a character rather similar to the form of the C 
as given by Mr. Haigh, but not exactly like it. In 

every instance where this character i--*-. — K — occurs 
on this monument, the lower part of it has always a 



Maughan's Second Account, i8jj 113 

flat top, no appearance of side-loops, and merely two 
dots above the side strokes. It certainly is not used 
as he shapes it. If it occurred in his word k sigbecun ' 
as he shapes it, then the two upright strokes of my 
letters C and N would want about a third of their 
form in the middle of each of them, but no such want 
can be seen on the stone. The strokes are perfect 
and visible enough from top to bottom. 

I then directed his attention to the appearance of 

marks across the letter pj at the commencement of 

the second line, which, I thought, formed the trirunor, 
or compound Rune — THU — several instances of com- 
pound Runes appearing on the stone. He said 'they 
were merely accidental marks, and of no consequence 
at all.' 

The two following words, ' settas ' and ' Hwaetred ' 
are the only words in which our versions approach 
to the character of being ' identical.' I deciphered 
this part of the inscriptions a long time before Mr. 
Haigh made any attempt to do so. 

Mr. Haigh next turned his attention to my word 
"Waethgar,' which he said was or ought to be Witgcer. 
I pointed out the marks of the angle on the side of 
the last perpendicular stroke, which made it the com- 
pound letter TH, thus M7 (^ETH.) He said ' they 

were faults, and ought not to have been there. Although 
he spoke so positively [35] at that time as to the word 
' Witgasr,' yet he has since changed it into the words 
' eom gaer.' 

As to the word ' Flwoldu,' he assured me he was 
quite correct about it. He showed me his tracings 
of the word, evidently adopting the slightest weather 
mark or injury to the stone where it suited him, and 



114 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

pronouncing the deepest and best-defined cuttings to 
be blots, faults, or accidents, when they did not suit him. 
This he did throughout all the inscriptions. Although he 
was so positive as to the word Flwoldu being the 
name of a person, he has since converted it into a 
common substantive, signifying 'pestilence.' 

He now came to the word ' Roetbert,' which made 
him stare at first, but he soon saw his way through 
it, rejecting several of the existing marks, and placing 
marks where there were none. 

On my observing that one of the letters had a very 
good upright stroke, and a good side stroke, diverging 

so as to resemble the letter L — C — he again told 

me that such a letter was not then in use, and that 
it was introduced into the Runic alphabet at a sub- 
sequent period. But he reads this letter C as a B, 
and in order to effect this, he gives it a side-loop at the 
top, of which there is no decisive trace, and he carries 
the bottom of the under side-loop down through the half- 
inch space between the lines of the inscription into the 
space between the letters Y and N of the line below. He 
said that such faults were quite common, but how he 
contrives to make them quite common I know not, 
for the Bewcastle inscription is probably the only 
one of that early period, and this will be the only 
instance on this monument where the letter B is so 

formed — if it is formed thus Although he stated so 

dogmatically that Roetbert was the name of one of 
the parties who erected this monument, he has since 
changed his mind on this point, and now asserts that 
the monument was erected to him jointly with Alcfrid. 
In the 6th line he found the word ' umse,' which 
he translated ' in memory of.' I know of no Anglo- 
Saxon Dictionary or even Glossary where such a word 



Maugharis Second Account, jSjj 115 

occurs. He has since changed his word ' umae ' into 
k ymb.' 

In the 7th line he gets his word ' Alcfrithae.' To 
the first upright stroke he attaches an under side- 
mark, so as to form the letter A. Of this mark I can 
see no visible trace — no depression, such as might 
have been expected, if ever a mark had been cut here, 
and a part of the stone cut away. He reads the second 
upright stroke as the letter L. At the third letter C 
he requires too much space. Between the F and the 
R there is also rather too much space. His next two 
letters are so close together that the letter I is act- 
ually placed upon the side marks of his preceding 
letter R. An objection may also be raised against 
his word ' Alcfrithae,' as applied to a person of the 
male sex. Proper names ending in • tha ' generally 
denote a female. In Anglo-Saxon charters it is in- 
variably so. We find Kynigitha and Kynigithe, Queen 
of Kent, mentioned in the same charter of her husband 
in 694. We also find Mildrythcz, Abbess of the Mon- 
astery in Thanet ; Frithogitha, Queen of the W T est- 
Saxons ; Kyneswitha, Queen of Offa. King of Mercia ; 
also Mlfrythce, another Queen of Mercia. We also 
find the names Kynedritha, Etheldritha, Mlswytha, and 
many others, but in no instance do we find a man's 
name ending in 'tha' or 'tha?.' Higden (p. 251) men- 
tions one Alfritha, the Queen of Kenulphus. Camden, 
speaking of Stonehenge, tells us that Alfritha, wife of 
King Edgar, built and endowed a stately nunnery that 
she might expiate her crime in killing her son-in-law, 
King Edward, by penance and good works. This is 
another instance of the word being applied to a female. 
Hence we have fair grounds for rejecting this word 
as the name of King Alcfrid. 



n6 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

In the word ' Gegidaed,' the letter Ni — E has only 

one upright stroke visible on the stone, and how he 
forms the remainder of this word I can scarcely com- 
prehend. He altered his words ' hissum saule ' into 
' heosum 1 saulum' ; passing through the space between the 
ines again to get the top of the first letter U in ' heosum,' 
rejecting the cross bar of the H altogether in ' sawhula,' 
and attaching a side-mark to the top of one of its 
uprights so as to get his letter L. 

Such are the two versions of this inscription. With 
the exception of a few friendly suggestions, I am only 
indebted for my version to my own time, my own la- 
bour, my own perseverance, and most especially to 
my own residence on the [36] spot, which has enabled 
me to examine and re-examine, to correct and re-cor- 
rect, not only my own frequent errors, but also the 
errors of others. 

In another paper read before the Society of Anti- 
quaries at Newcastle Mr. Haigh has made some altera- 
tions of which I have, only seen a translation in Roman 
letters ; but not a copy of the Runic characters. In 
this paper he reads the chief inscription thus — 'This 
sigbecun saettae Hwaetred eom gaer flwoldu Roetbert 
ymb Alcfridae. Gicegaed heosum saulum.' — 'This 
memorial set Hwaetred in the great pestilence year to 
Roetbert to King Alcfride. Pray for their souls.' On 
these alterations I shall now make a few remarks. 

His first alteration occurs in his word 'Witgaer,' 
which he changes into the two words 'eom gaer.' 
The word ' eom ' appears to be open to a few ob- 
jections. The letters in this word require five per- 
pendicular or full upright strokes, while on the stone 
there are only three. Besides, in the Anglo-Saxon 
language, the word ' eom ' is either a pronoun, mean- 



Maugharis Second Account, i8jj 1 17 

ing ' to them ' — ' eom ' for ' heom,' and that for the 
dative plural 'him" : or else it is the indicative mood 
of the defective verb 'wesan' — 'to be,' and signifies, 
in plain English, ' I am.' I know of no instance 
where ' eom ' occurs for the preposition ' in.' 

An objection may also be raised against the word 
'gaer.' In Anglo-Saxon we have the word ' gear,' 
signifying ' a year,' but not the word ' gaer.' The 
Runic characters on the stone may be read 'gar' or 
' gaer,' but not ' gear ' ; and hence, probably, he 
takes the liberty of transposing the vowels E and A, 
but we may question whether the liberty is not an 
unwarrantable one. I find a trace of every mark nec- 
essary for the word 'Waethgar' ; but I feel bound to 
say that ' eom gaer ' appears a very doubtful read- 
ing. It also appears very doubtful whether Alfrid 
did die in the great pestilence year, for, according to 
Bede, he was alive in the following year. 

In the first reading he introduced Roetbert as one 
of the party who erected the monument to Alcfrid, 
but in his second reading he supposes the monument 
to be raised to him and King Alcfrid. Of this Roet- 
bert history leaves us no record, which appears rather 
strange if he was so eminent a personage as to be 
considered worthy of sharing the monument with 
King Alcfride. From what I have previously said on 
this word, however, a doubt may be fairly entertained 
whether the word ' Roetbert ' ever was placed on the 
monument. 

He alters the word ' umae ' into ' ymb,' which 
signifies ' about,' — ' around,' i. e., something winding 
about or compassing. It is very evident, however, 
that a stone pillar (although it is fifteen feet in length) 
would be a very unsuitable winding-sheet for the 
corpse of King Alcfrid. Its use on this monument, 



n8 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

signifying 'in memory of,' seems rather a forced one. 
Besides, its proper position should have been before 
both the words 'Roetbert' and ' Alcfrid,' and not 
between them, as it has reference to both words. 

The word ' gicegsed ' appears to have some remark- 
able transformations rendering it what may be termed 
a ' far fetched ' word. I presume that it is originally 
derived from the verb 'biddan' — 'to pray,' which, 
in the imperative mood, plural number, is thus formed 
' biddath ' — ' pray ye.' In the first transformation, 
then, we have the word ' biddath ' changed into 
'biddaed.' In the second transformation we have 
' biddsed ' changed into ' bigaed.' In the third we have 
' bigasd ' changed into ' cegaed.' In the fourth we 
have the expletive ' ge ' changed into ' gi.' Besides 
these transformations, which appear very forced and 
unwarrantable, very grave doubts may be entertained 
whether such Runic characters can be really traced 
on the stone. I have not seen Mr. Haigh's second 
readings of the other parts of the stone. 

After examining the chief inscription Mr. Haigh in- 
quired if there were any traces of letters on any other 
part of the Cross. I directed his attention to the flat 
space near the top on the north side, where I had 
observed some traces. He mounted a ladder, and 
soon found the letters to which I had directed him. 
After a little examination with his finger — scratching 
among the moss with the point of his knife — and then 
taking a rubbing, he made out the word ' Gessu,' as 
he supposed, and satisfied himself that there was noth- 
ing besides. I afterwards cleared the stone from its 
thick coat of lichens and moss, took careful rubbings, 
and painted the stone, [37] and I ascertained that the 
inscription consisted of three crosses and the word 
' Gessus,' as I have previously stated. 



Maughan's Second Account, iSjy 119 

He then set the ladder against the west side, and 
examined the plain surface near the top, but soon 
pronounced it barren, and that the inscription on this 
side (if ever there was one) was totally broken off. 
By careful examination I found remains of the word 
' Kristtus.' In a letter which I have since received 
from him, he stated that he had found the letter A 
on the west side, when he examined it (of which, 
however, I heard nothing said at the time), and that 
he suspected it was the first letter of the word ' Al- 
pha,' and that the word ' Omega ' would have been 
on the east side, which is now totally gone. He read 
the inscriptions on these plain surfaces thus : ' Gessu ' 
on the north side ; ' Kriste ' on the south side ; w Al- 
pha ' on the west side ; and ' Omega ' on the east 
side ; making the sentence ' Jesu Christ, the begin- 
ning and the ending.' This certainly is a very in- 
genious reading, but it is not confirmed by the exist- 
ing traces of the letters. 

He then examined the south side, and soon found 
what he had anticipated, namely, the word, or at least 
a part of the word, ' Kristte,' to correspond, as he 
said at the time, with the two lines on the west side, 
which I had discovered long before. After partly 
clearing away the moss with the point of his knife, 
and taking a rubbing, he was convinced that he had 
found the characters — 



3k 



C R I S 

very distinct, forming part of the word CRISTE. On 
a more careful examination, however, I found the letters 



120 



Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 



to be LICE. These letters are now, when cleaned, very- 
perfect, will receive the end of the finger very easily, 
and are quite visible to the eye. There fortunately 
cannot now be two opinions about them. 

He next proceeded to inspect the other single lines 
on the south side of the pillar. He examined the top 
line, and concluded that there had been nothing there. He 
then came down to the next one, and after rubbing 
it a while with his finger, he fancied there might be 
letters. After a little further examination, he said he 
could find the words ' Ecgfrid Cyng,' ' King Egfrid.' 



n«#WH#^ 



He then scraped the moss with the point of his knife 
in the places where he fancied the letters were lurk- 
ing, and afterwards took a rubbing on strong dry 
paper (rubbing both ways across the stone, and then 
up and down) which rubbing, as a matter of course, 
gave him a faint trace — at least of the letter or marks 
which he had scratched in the lichen — if of nothing 
else. He was not long till he satisfied himself per- 
fectly on this point, i. e. as to the words ' Ecgfrid 
Cyng' having once occupied a place there. This is 
the line which I read ' Rices thaes ' — ' of this king- 
dom.' 

His next step was to the line below, where, after 
a process something similar to the one already de- 
scribed, he found the word l Cyniburug,' the name 
of Alcfrid's queen. 



^fi-ferun** 



This word I read ; kyninges,' — ' king.' In one of 
his earliest letters to me he stated that he expected 



Maugharis Second Account, iSjy 121 

to find the word ' Cyneburg ' on one of the single 
lines on the south side to correspond with the same 
name on the north side. 

In the bottom line he readily found the words ' Oswu 
Cyning elt,' — ' Oswy King the elder, as he had pre- 
viously given them. These words I read thus — ' + 
fruman gear' — 'in the first year.' 

He then said that there was one name which be 
should have liked better to have seen than any of 
them, and that was the name of Queen Eanfleda. I 
suggested that it might perhaps be found on the top 
line if it were more strictly examined. He remounted 
the ladder, and after a few rubs with his finger across 
the stone he said — ' I do believe here is a letter.' 
After a few more rubs with his finger he again said — 
' I do believe the name is here.' He then applied the 
knife awhile, and [38] took a rubbing as before, and 
found the word ' Eanflad,' in 



mm 



the first part of the line, and pronounced the remainder 
of the line blank. He was quite delighted with this 
discovery, and more especially with the particular form 

of the letter (EA). In fact, so overjoyed was he 

with the discovery of this interesting family tree (which 
he had possibly found in his own imagination before 
he left home) that he quite forgot to look at the lines 
on the north side of the monument. With more care- 
ful tests I have been induced to read this line — 'Ecg- 
frithu,' ' of Ecgfrid.' 

Thus clouded is the origin of the version with which 
Mr. Haigh has ventured to honour the members of the 
Newcastle Society of Antiquarians. He did not give 



122 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

his version to the Society with a hood over his eyes, 
for he no sooner informed me of his intentions than 
I informed him of the true character of the rubbings 
which I had sent him. He however persisted in the 
correctness and accuracy of his version, stating that 
he had not only inspected the monument, but made rubbings 
of it, and traced the letters with his finger, and thus as- 
sured himself of its accuracy. I have also examined 
the monument and fingered the Runes many scores 
of times, and scores of times I have come to the 
conclusion that the decipherings were not correct on 
which on a former inspection I had not the least 
doubt or scruple. It is only by very slow steps, and 
by carefully examining and re-examining, that I have 
arrived at the conclusion that my version accords with 
the original. Mr. Haigh's inspection of the several 
parts of the monument, tracing the letters with his 
finger, scratching marks in the moss, and taking rub- 
bings of them, was limited to about two hours ; my 
examinations of the Cross have extended over twice 
the number of years. 

I have thought it necessary to enter into these 
minute details, and thus to put my readers in pos- 
session of every fact and circumstance connected with 
this version, in order that they may have sufficient 
data on which to form their own judgment as to the 
merits of the respective readings of the inscriptions 
on this important Memorial. 



XIV. HAIGH'S SECOND ACCOUNT, 1861. 

[This is taken from Haigh's Conquest of Britain by the Saxons, 
pp. 37, 39—41. The runes at the end are from Plate II, at the 
beginning of the volume.] 

[37] Two of them are of particular interest, as being 
of greater length than others, and presenting us with 
specimens of the Anglian dialect, as spoken in Nor- 
thumbria in the seventh century. The first, on the 
western face of the cross at Bewcastle in Cumberland, 
is simply a memorial of Alcfrid, who was associated 
by his father Oswiu with himself in the kingdom of Nor- 
thumbria, and died probably in A. D. 664. 1 It gives us 
(PI. I. fig. 2) three couplets 2 of alliterative verse, thus 3 : — 

t^t this sigbecun This memorial 

settle HWyETRED Hwaetred set 

em G^ERFiE boldu and carved this monument 

yEFTiER barje after the prince, 

ymb cyning alcfrid^ after the King Alcfrid, 

giceg^ed heosum sawlum pray for their souls. 
Other inscriptions on the same monument present 
merely names of some of Alcfrid's kindred, in which, 
however, some additional characters occur. 

The second inscription, on two sides of a similar 
cross at Ruthwell, in Annandale, which may possibly 
have been brought from Bewcastle, and once have stood 
at the other end of Alcfrid's grave, 4 consists, etc. . . . 
[39] The poem of which these are fragments 
was probably one of those which Caedmon, who was 
living at the time when these monuments were erected, 
composed. 5 That they belong to the seventh century 
cannot be doubted ; they contain forms of the language 
which are evidently earlier even than those which 
occur in the contemporary version of Baeda's verses in 



124 



Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 



a MS. at S. Gallen, and the copy of Csedmon's first 
song at the end of the MS. of the ' Historia Ecclesi- 
astica,' which was completed two years after its 
author's death. Thus hifun (ana[4o]logous to the Gothic 
sibun for seofen) is certainly an earlier form than hefaen 
and heben, which we find in the latter of these little 
poems. Em in the Bewcastle inscription is efen con- 
tracted. Boldu, 1 galgu, and dalgu, present a form of 
nouns which later would be monosyllabic. Heosum, 1 
the dative plural of the possessive pronoun of the 
third person, regularly formed, like usum, from the 
genitive of the personal, (hire, ure\ occurs only in 
the Bewcastle inscription ; ungcet, the dual of the first 
personal pronoun, only in that at Ruthwell. Gar fee 1 
is a strange instance of a strong verb [41] taking an ad- 
ditional syllable in the praeterite ; but it seems to be 
warranted by scopa in Csedmon's song, and even by 
ahofe in the Durham ritual ; and the analogy of the 
Sanscrit praeterite (tutopa, tutopa), and the Greek 
(TSTucpoe, Te-rucps), shows that such forms as these, not 
only for the third person, but for the first also, are 
more ancient than cearf, scop, and ahof. 



rmmm 
fofcrwirih 



NOTES 



i 2 



NOTES 

[The references are to page and note. Date signifies The 
Date of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses {Trans. Conn. 
Acad. Arts and Sciences 17. 213—361), which may be con- 
sulted for photographs of the crosses, as well as the discussion 
of details.] 

li. Buechastell. For the derivation and various spellings 
of this name, see Date, pp. 96—8; and compare instances 
below. 

12. Hubert de Vaux received the barony of Gil(le)sland 
from Henry II in 1158 {Date, p. 100). His son, Robert de 
Vaux, founded the priory of Lanercost in 1169 {Date, p. 98). 
The inscription must have been that now read as Cynnburug 
{Date, p. 26). 

Is. The 'cheeky coate' in the panel of chequers {Date, 
p. 26), thought of as a coat of arms. 

14. Does 'other' here mean the south face? 

1 5. b and R are much alike in Runic and Roman. By 
beginning at the B of Cynnburug (as commonly read), 
taking the first U as a somewhat angular O (see Date, Fig. 26), 
and the second u as a battered A, one might possibly, con- 
sidering the defaced condition of the final letter, arrive at 
BORAX; the E would occasion more difficulty, and one would 
have to disregard the previous letters. As for VAUX, one 
might take the first u for Roman V, regard the R as A, 
deal boldly with the second u, and again take the final letter 
as x; Hubert de would require more conjuring. (A con- 
venient table of 'commoner Anglian runes' may be found 
in Wyatt's Old English Riddles, opposite p. xxviii.) 

2 i. Vaulx. It seems as though Camden had adopted Roscar- 
rock's suggestion (see p. 1). See note on p. 148. 

3 i. untoward part. Cf. pp. 12, 23, and Date, pp. 147—8. 
If we may believe Hutchinson {Hist. Cumb. 1. 78), Bewcastle 
was not always a tiny hamlet : 'Bewcastle seems to have 

[I2 7 ] 



128 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

anciently been an extensive town, by the scites and ruins 
of houses, which yet remain.' 

32. Curate. See p. 10. 

3 a. Communicated. On April 18, 1629, Sir Henry Spelman 
(1564 ?— 1641) wrote a letter from London to Palaemon (or 
Palle) Rosencrantz, the Danish ambassador to England, 
in which, among other things, he refers to a recent book of 
the runologist Olaus Worm (1588—1654), who, after occupy- 
ing successively the chairs of belles lettres (1613—5) and Greek 
(1615—1624) at Copenhagen, had been made Professor of 
Medicine in 1624. Spelman would like to learn whence runes 
derive their name, and to what country and people they 
properly belong. In particular, he submits a runic inscription 
for Worm to interpret. This, he says, came from the epistyle 
of a stone cross at Bewcastle, in the north of England, where 
the Danes had been numerous. The inscription had been 
shown by Lord William Howard to Camden and himself 
together, in 1618, eleven years before. In his Latin this runs: 
' Sculpta fuit hsec Inscriptio Epistylio crucis lapidese, Beu- 
castri partibus Anglise borealibus (ubi Dani plurimum versa- 
bantur) Cambdenoque & mihi simul exhibita Anno Domini 
1618, ab Antiquitatum inter proceres Angliae peritissimo 
Domino Guilielmo Howard novissimi Ducis Norfolcise filio' 
(Worm, Danicorum Monumentorum Libri Sex, p. 161). 

The inscription is printed by Worm as follows: 

rtlkMNfc^NtiM. 

On July 18 of the same year Worm replies. The inscription 
is indeed runic, but the copy, made by an unskilful person, 
is incomplete, and wrong in the case of at least five letters. 
He proposes to make the necessary corrections, and so to 
read: Rino satu runa stina d (the d being for p) ; that is, 
' Rino set runic stones these.' The Latin is (p. 168) : ' Inscriptio 
epistilii crucis lapideae Beucastriensis vere Gothica seu 
Runica est, sed ab imperito haud plane descripta; nam nee 
integra est, nee 4, 5, 7, 8, 12 notse confusionem & depra- 
vationem effugere. . . . Quod si ita legendum ? ' After giving 
his conjectural runes, their transliteration, and the Latin, 



Notes 129 

Rino lapides hos runicos -posuit, he proceeds to express the 
wish that Spelman would have the inscription more accur- 
ately copied by some one not wholly ignorant of the literature, 
in which case he would do what he could with it. 

The explanation of Worm's extraordinary answer is to 
be found, as Wilhelm Grimm long afterwards saw (Ueber 
Deutsche Runen, Gottingen, 1821, pp. 165—6) in the fact that 
the Scandinavian runes differ in some respects from the Old 
English ones, and that Worm was unfamiliar with the latter 
(for instance, he reads as N the Old English rune for c). 
Accordingly, he made various arbitrary changes, provided 
a plural verb for a singular nominative, and used the plural, 
'stones,' where evidently only one stone is in question. 

According to an entry in the British Museum Cottonian 
MS. Domitian A. 18, fol. 37, the inscription was on a cross- 
head ( Spelman 's epistylium cruris) found at Bewcastle in 
1615. The entry, which I suspect to be in the hand of Sir 
Robert Cotton, follows : 

-f£ti fniLnjfhv* **a* en f&* htatt *f a crvfr jcuns* 

t -/^r Kncf/i <ffiinf Ihrne- /cm £n* /letrs/eff&c C/rcjtr— r(f?tneA*t 

I 'f'A* rj~4tcAs>e$ -— ^f- - meter 

Cotton MS. Julius F. 6 has a similar entry on fol. 313 (form- 
erly 297), recto, which looks like a rough draft, on a torn and 
mended sheet, of that in the Domitian MS. The runes (at 
the left) are of the same form, but larger. The English (at 
the right) is in a ruder hand; it omits the first two lines, and 

reads 'bringe', 'a crosse', ' deth', and' nes'. In a 

print-hand, at right angles to the foregoing: 'Bucastle 
inscription | For Mr. Clarenceaulx ' . 



130 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

But the runes are again recorded on a slip of paper be- 
tween pages 643 and 644 of Bodleian MS. Smith I, Camden's 
copy of his Britannia. There is no doubt, according to Sir 
George Frederic Warner, that the entry which follows is 
in Cotton's own hand: 
A 

l n. a s 



UtrmKHAHHFSI 



&& *" A -fen* jZ~<> **■ ■»■»■> ZZ <+* »•■»•**• &>*> £ «»£ -£&Tt <r> vrnO'^S **,*,;£+#■ 

A** / a~3 t<~ ?>» &/». **« *«~ :£* **~ty*~» w oStt. -*■«// f^^ 

H-n^-tyiM /**■>*/ £*»» «* /£/W*v*~M ~fZryyk~ ^* emeu-*/.. -. * ' 

For convenience, I print the part of the entry which concerns 
us, supplying punctuation: 

' I receaued this morning a ston from my lord of Arundell 
sent him from my lord William ; it was the head of a Cross 
at Bewcastell. All the lettres leg able ar thes in on[e] line. 
And I have sett to them such as I can gather out of my 
Alphabetts: that lyk an A I can find in non. But wether 
thes be only lettres or words I somwhatt dout.' 

The purport I take to be this: Lord William Howard, 
who in 1618 had shown the cross-head to Camden and Spel- 
man (see above), sent it, at some time between this and 1623 
(when Camden died) to Thomas Howard (1586—1646), 
second Earl of Arundel, the collector of the Arundel marbles 
and other works of art, who (promptly?) turned it over to 
Cotton. Some of the letters were legible, others not; such as 
were legible were in a single line. Cotton searched in his 
runic alphabets to find how these letters should be trans- 
literated. R he seems at first sight to have mistaken for V, 
but his small r's much resemble v's, so possibly it is R. C (k) 
he misreads as N, as did Worm. About D he is uncertain 
whether it may not be an M — pardonable enough, y he gives 
up. t he reads asF. The other letters he interprets correctly. 



Notes 131 

Cotton, immediately upon receipt of the stone, sends a 
note from his house at Westminster, on the site of the present 
House of Lords, to his former teacher and constant friend, 
Camden, then probably residing at Chislehurst, eleven miles 
southeast of London; and afterwards sees to it that the 
particulars concerning the inscription shall be preserved, by 
inserting them in one of his manuscripts. 

Thus, in the first quarter of the seventeenth century, 
there were (and are still) extant four copies of the same in- 
scription — that printed in Worm's book, and three in manu- 
script. Of the three, two are now in Cotton manuscripts of 
the British Museum, and another in the Bodleian library. 
These all agree, save that those in Worm and the Bodleian 
slip have Y as the 8th letter, while the two of the British 
Museum read u, as the result of omitting an interior stroke. 

In 1703 Hickes {Thesaurus, Praef., p. XII) and Wanley 
(Catalogus, p. 248) read (with help from the Bodleian copy ?) 
rynas Dryhtnes (Hickes, Drithnesl), 'mysteries of the Lord,' 
and Wanley reproduces the Domitian copy of runes. 

In 1741, Pontoppidan, in his Gesta et Vestigia Danorum 
extra Daniam 2. 14, reproduces Spelman's runes from Worm 
(somewhat toppling to the right the twelfth letter), and gives 
a new rendering, furnished by Christian Helverschov, formerly 
Counsellor of Justice and Provincial Judge in Denmark. 
Helverschov supposes the runes to represent an utterance 
of Christ on the cross — Vilos ero ateos — which he takes to 
be vile Latin for Vilis ero atheis : ' I shall be vile to the god- 
less'; whereupon Pontoppidan gravely doubts whether the 
initial letters of these three words have been quite correctly 
read. He ends with a copy of Worm's emended line. 

In 1821, W 7 ilhelm Grimm (op. cit., p. 167), takes up the 
matter of the inscription at Bevercastle (sic), near Nottingham 
(there is a Bevercoates near Tuxford), reproduces it from 
Worm, and renders it as rices Dryhtnes, observing at the same 
time that the e of the ending is not represented by the usual 
rune. He interprets the Old English as 'of the realm's domin- 
ion,' namely (p. 168), 'the rule of heaven over earth'; or, 
'the power of the earthly realm through the acceptance of 



132 Some Accounts of the Bewcastie Cross 

the cross'; or, most probably, 'the sway of the jurisdiction,' 
according to which the cross would have served to mark the 
boundary of a district. 

In 1840, Kemble (Archceologia 28. 346) reproduces the 
Spelman inscription, and renders by ricces Dryhtnces, 'Do- 
mini potentis,' for '[signum] Domini potentis.' 

But what bearing has all this upon the Bewcastie Cross? 
'On the head of a cross found at Beucastell in 1615,' says 
the Domitian MS. Sent (between 1618 and 1623) by Belted 
Will to his half-nephew, says Cotton's slip. Was the cross 
found in 1615 ? Then it was not our cross, written about in 
1607 by a member of Belted Will's household (see p. 1, above). 
Was it the cross-head that was found in 1615 ? Then it could 
not have been on our cross in 1607. Was it disinterred in 
1615, having originally belonged to our cross? If so, was it 
the cross-beam, or the portion immediately above? It has 
neither the shape nor the dimensions which fit either of these 
suppositions (Date, p. 122). Then it is not a part of our cross, 
but of some other cross. But if it was the portion above the 
cross-beam, and stood upon its edge, the cross must have been 
at once broader and thinner than the present. (Few of the 
Scottish slabs were so thin as 4 inches, but there is one at 
Brodie (Allen, Early Christ. Mori. 3. 132), not far from 
Forres in Elgin, which tapers upward from 5 inches to 4, 
its height being 5 feet 4 inches, and its breadth, 3 feet 5 inches 
to 3 feet 2 inches. Significant in this connection is the one 
at Keills in Argyll pictured by Allen (between pp. 390 and 
391), 7 feet 4 inches high, 1 foot 9 inches across the arms, 
and 6V2 inches thick.) And if it was the cross-beam itself, 
and lay upon its broader face (a rather improbable suppo- 
sition), the cross must have been much shorter than the 
present one, in order that the thickness of four inches should 
bear some due proportion to the height of the cross. 

Observing, too, that the ending -ces (as Kemble has told 
us : op. cit., p. 346) is a mark of antiquity, why may we not 
assume that this was the head of an older cross, of quite 
different shape, fallen, perhaps overthrown and covered with 
earth, and with some of the letters illegible. Might not 



Notes 133 

such an older cross have been removed when the newer - , 
and perhaps more highly ornamented one, was erected ? 
In thus superseding the older one, the sculptor of the present, 
cross might or might not have adapted the work of his prede- 
cessor. If so, an older Cyniburg might in this way have be- 
come Cynnburug. 

It will be evident that epistylium cruris, in the light of 
Cotton's entries, must mean cross-head (Wilhelm Grimm 
said 'Queerstiick,' cross-beam, transverse piece), and that all 
attempts to make the phrase mean the existing shaft, the 
lowest inscription on the south face, etc., are due to mis- 
apprehension. 

4i. Nicolson here assumed that the inscription sent to 
Worm was part of that on the west face. 

42. Epystilium signified to Nicolson the whole cross. 
See note on 3 3. 

43. five yards. Cf. pp. 12, 17, 25. 

44. white oyly Cement. Frequently transcribed by later 
writers. 

4 5. two foot. Compare the figures on pp. 12, 25. 

4 6. Here is the first decipherment of this line, and clearly 
Cynnburug. See Date, pp. 12, 26, 37, 43—44, and above, 
pp. 10, 11. 

5i. Interpreting Ryn- as 'runes,' and -buru as 'burial.' 

61. The last two letters are meant for NN. 

62. More antient date. See note on I2. 

81. Compare these with the previous reading, p. 7. 
9i. Cf. Date, pp. 98-9 (note). 

92. Perhaps properly Tonge; cf. p. 10, and Miscellany 
Accounts, p. 163. 

93. Benson. Mentioned in Nicolson's Diary, under 1704; 
see Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc, of America 17. 371. 

94. As it does now. 

9 5. Cf. note on 33. 
10 1. 1695. 

10 2. Again Cynnburug. 

10 3. Thistle. The topmost vine? Or the sundial? 



134 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

12 1. Obelisk. The first time it is so called. See Date, 
pp. 121-3. 

122. Cf. Nicolson, p. 4. 

123. Cf. Nicolson, p. 4. 

124. Cross. The first suggestion of this. 

13. For the third and fourth letters of Cynnburug, cf . pp. 4, 
10, 11. 

14. The inscription at the left is intended to reproduce 
the lowest one visible; cf. p. 8. 

15 1. Southern Baltic, east of Jutland. 

152. Note the advance in the interpretation. 

153. The Massagetae inhabited what is now northern 
Khiva. For a so-called Massagetic alphabet, see Hickes, 
Thesaurus, Gram. Isl., Tabella I, bottom. 

154. Not the European Don. 

16 1. Buchanan. George Buchanan (1506—1582), Rer. 
Scot. Hist. 6. 74. 

162. Died 900. 

16 3. Never published. 

164. Cf. Nicolson's view, p. 6. 

16 5. Bride-Kirk. Cf. pp. 3, 7, 22, 24. 

17 1. Cf. p. 12. 

172. Cf. note on 124. 

173. Dial. The earliest mention. 

174. The earliest mention. 

20 i. The reading of Cynnburug. 
21 i. Cf. p. 7. 

21 2. Eleventh century. A new date, unless this was what 
Nicolson had in mind ; see note on 6 2, p. 30, and p. 97, note 40. 

21 3. Pomegranet. The dial? 

21 4. Cf. note on 124. 

22 i. Effigies. Note the fulness of the descriptions of the 
figures. 

23 1. Cf. p. 4. 

232. Cf. p. 5. 

24 (plate, fig. 3). The stroke of the second n' in Cynn- 
burug is here faint. 

25 i. See note on 4 s. 



Notes 135 

252. Cf. note on 12 4. 

253. Working. Cf. p. 21. 
25 4. Cf. note on 24. 

28 1. Holy lamb. Here first identified. 

282. Cf. note on 14. 
30 1. Again Cynnburug. 
31 1. Cf. note on 14. 

32 1. Baptist. Here first identified; cf. p. 23. 

322. Hawk. Cf. pp. 4, 17, 22, 32. 

323. Cf. note on 173. 

324. Ed. Perhaps Albert Way (1805— 1874) ; see pp. 69, 72. 
33 1. Mr. Smith. Rather Hutchinson; see p. 22. 

35 1. The first mention of Dunstan in connection with 
the Cross. 

36 1. An abstract of Dr. Edward Charlton's paper (read 
Jan. 2, 1856) is contained in the rare Vol. 1 (no more pub- 
lished) of the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of New- 
castle upon Tyne (1856), pp. 75—7. Dr. Charlton follows the 
readings, now of Maughan, whom he calls 'the zealous incum- 
bent of Bewcastle,' and dow of Haigh (I owe my information 
to the transcript obligingry made for me by Robert Blair, 
Esq., F. S. A., Secretary of the Society). Dr. Charlton 
says : ' Having with great care, cleansed the stone of its lichen 
and moss [cf. pp. 70, 118], Mr. Maughan took careful casts 
of the characters, and communicated copies to several archae- 
ologists, amongst others, to the Rev. Daniel Haigh. . . . On 
the north side of the cross is inscribed, very plainly, "Kyni- 
buruk" [cf. pp. 15, 99], or "Cyneburg," the name of a 
queen of Northumbria, being the wife of Alchfrid, son of 
Oswiu, king of Northumberland. On the western face, 
the inscription, as deciphered, is "THIS SIGBECUN SETTAE 
HW^TRED, W1TGAER, FELWOLD & ROETBERT, UM^E KYNING 
ALCFRITH^; GEBID^D HISSUM SAULA" — intimating that the 
four persons first named had set up this cross to King Alcfrith, 
and requested prayers for his soul. Roetbert is commemorated 
in the Falstone inscription, as dead.' Here Charlton follows 
Haigh (see pp. 107, 110, 111). He proceeds : . . . ' On the south 
face is a Runic inscription, interpreted by Mr. Haigh — "oswu 



136 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

KYNING ELT," — or Oswy the King. "Elt" may possibly 
refer to his being the elder (or head) of the family [see p. 109]. 
This inscription confirms the supposition that the cross 
was reared in the lifetime of Oswy. No prayers being asked 
for the souls of Oswy and Cyneburga, as for the soul of Alch- 
frid, it may be inferred that they were still living. If so, the 
memorial must have been erected between 664, when we last 
hear of Alchfrid, and 670, when Oswy died.' ... In a note 
to his paper, Dr. Charlton refers to a new version of the Bew- 
castle inscription, published by Mr. Maughan in December, 
viz.: "This sigbeacithon saetta Hwaetred, Withgar, Aale- 
wolthu, aft Alcfrithu, ean Kunig eak Oswiuing. Igebid heo 
sinna sawhula." "Hwaetred, Withgar, and Alfwold, erected 
this little beacon in memory of Alfrid, at one time king with, 
and son of, Oswy. Pray for them, their sins and their souls." 
The Doctor thinks the version of Mr. Haigh, the more prob- 
able of the two, and nearer the truth. 

' The chairman [Mr. John Hodgson Hinde] said, the paper 
was very interesting. At the same time, it would have been 
more conclusive if "Cyneburga" had not been deciphered 
first. Assuming the accuracy of the conclusions now before 
the meeting, it would seem that, contrary to the historians, 
the Anglo-Saxons had written characters before their con- 
version to Christianity.' 

362. Penrith. See Collingwood's Early Sculptured Crosses, 
pp. 240 ff. 

363. Camden. Rather, Cotton; see note on 33. 

38 1. See note on 33. 

382. This is taken from Worm's conjectural emendation 
(Dan. Mon., p. 168). 

38s. Cf. p. 119. 

39 1. These variants occur in the form presented by Dr. 
Charlton on March 2, 1856 (Newcastle Proc, p. 98, as 
communicated by Mr. Blair): line 1, DIS; 2, VN S^ET-; 
V ROETBERT. See pp. 110, 116. 

392. Here, as in Ecgjrid (below) and Alcfrida (next page), 
the d is a Latinization of p, and would not occur in a runic 
inscription. 



Notes 137 

393. His plate reads distinctly Cynn-. 

40 1. Cf. Date, pp. 93-4. 

41 i. Rit. 68. 11-12. 

42i. ahofe. Rather, ahof, Rit. 61. 15. 

422. gicegath. Normally, giceigad (see 7?*7. 173. 9, and cf. 
175.21); but gicegad occurs 54. 3. The sense is 'call upon.' 

423. It is hardly necessary to comment upon these con- 
jectures and assumptions. 

424. Mora. And hiara (3). 
43 1. See note on 423. 

44 1. Cf. pp. 100, 102. 

45 1. But Wilfrith went abroad to be consecrated in 664, 
and did not return till 666 (Bede, Op. Hist., ed. Plummer, 
2. 317). 

46 1. See my edition of The Dream of the Rood, pp. xi ff. 

462. See Date, pp. 53—5. 
47 1. Cf. note on 40 1. 

48 1. Cf. p. 36, and Date, p. 75. 

482. From Bewcastle? 

51 1. See Date, pp. 111—3. 

52 1. See p. 31. 

522. See Date, pp. 121-3. 

53 1. Rather, p. 318; see p. 13. 

532. See p. 18. 

533. See p. 24. 
54i. See p. 24. 

542. See p. 20. 

543. See plate opposite p. 28. 

544. See p. 2. Note the variations. 

55 1. Cf. Date, p. 122. 

552. 2. 478—9. They say the stone is 'about five feet and 
a half high/ 

55 3. See note on 3 3. 

554. Omit in. 

55 6. See note on 3 3. 

55 6. This comes ultimately from Worm's p. 162, but with 
two important changes. The eighth letter (= y) is properly 
an inverted v, with an oblique downward stroke from the 



138 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

inside of the left leg. This Worm represents almost as in 
Maughan's plate, which makes it resemble an M, the fourth 
and twelfth letters, only tilted instead of upright. Maughan 
tilts all three; hence we should either read RICHES DR^EHT- 
isles, or ricys dryhtnys; but this Maughan does not see. 
557. This is not Spelman's reading; Spelman could not 
read it, and therefore sent it to Worm; see below. 

55 8. From Kemble. 
559. Read Dryhtnes. 
55 10. See note on 33. 
56i. Rather Spelman. 

562. See note on 554. 

563. Here there are various deviations from Worm's 
runes. 

564. Worm has stina d — 'these stones'; for 'made,' 
Worm has posuit, 'placed.' 

56 5. Roden Dryhtness. I do not find this. Hickes says 
(Prsefatio, p. XIII) : ' Inveni Saxonicam crucis epigraphen, 
nempe, Rynas Drithnes [sic], mysteria domini, Uteris Runicis 
descriptam.' He then refers to Wanley (p. 248). 

56e. For Nicolson. 

56 7. Maughan seems to have followed the copy in Hutch- 
inson's Hist. Cumb. 1. 82—3. 
568. For erlat. 

56 9. Which Maughan has not reproduced (see p. 7). 
56io. Published 1840. 

57 1. Kemble's words are (p. 346): 'There has, therefore, 
been either a portion of the inscription lost, or the cross or 
pillar on which it stood was meant to be taken as part of the 
legend: — thus, Signum Domini Potentis.' 

57 2. Pp. 346-7. 

57 3. This is still unpublished; it was compiled by Jonathan 
Boucher (1738—1804), a friend of Washington's, for whom 
see Diet. Nat. Biog. 

574. Omit 'the reader.' 

575. This is from Nicolson. 

58 1. See p. 24. 

582. Robert White. At the meeting of the Society of 



Notes 139 

Antiquaries of Newcastle on October 1, 1856, Mr. White 
said that, 'being recently in the neighbourhood of Bevvcastle, 
he stepped aside to view the famous cross which had so 
repeatedly been brought under their observation, and, to 
his astonishment, found that the portions containing the long- 
studied inscriptions had been painted! — painted blue! The 
Runic letters were indicated by black lines upon the blue, 
the painter tracing the lines as he himself deciphered them; 
and even where there were no letters decipherable at all, 
Runes were painted. To satisfy himself of this fact, he drew 
his finger over the painted characters, and found no corres- 
ponding hollows in the stone. . . . Dr. Charlton said, he had 
no doubt the paint had been applied with a commendable 
object — to preserve the cross from further injury; but the 
Runes, of course, should have been left to speak for them- 
selves, instead of being made to favour any particular reading. 
Mr. Henry Turner said, the paint would preserve the stone ; 
and the black lines, legitimate or not, would not affect the 
substance of the cross ' (Proc. 1. 165—6). 

In a letter to the Gateshead Observer of October 18, 1856, 
Mr. Maughan replied : ' My motive for so doing was neither 
to disfigure, to injure, nor to preserve the Cross, but merely 
to secure as much accuracy as possible in deciphering the 
inscriptions. A stone which has retained its inscriptions for 
twelve hundred years requires no such adventitious aid as 
a coat of paint, and it is difficult to conceive how such a 
puerile idea can have found a lodgment in the cranium of 
the antiquated patriarchs of such a renowned Society. . . . 
My object in painting those parts of the Cross where I had 
reason to suspect the existence of inscriptions, was simply 
to obtain every vestige, however obscure it might be; and 
I have been gratified by thus recovering several traces which 
it was impossible for the eye to detect before. The process 
is most unquestionably a good one, and the result has been 
satisfactory. The paint has not done the slightest injury 
to the stone, and in a few winters will entirely disappear. . . . 
The paint was a mixture of white and brown, and, when 
first applied, was as near as possible of the same grey colour 

k 



140 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

as the old mossy covering with which the stone was coated. 
Since the application the brown has rather predominated 
over the white, and it has now a darker appearance. . . . 
I am ready to admit that there are black marks on the 
South and the North Sides of the Cross, where the letters 
have partly disappeared. I feel firmly convinced, however, 
that there is not a black mark in the chief inscription 
without its corresponding depression on the stone, although 
some of the tracings were all but obliterated. It was only 
by thus tracing the letters in black that I was able to arrive 
at the full and the clear conviction that my decipherings 
are probably correct '. 

At a meeting of the Society on August 5, 1857, there was 
'a short conversation on the Bewcastle cross' and 'a joke 
or two on the recent controversy thereon and on the Rev. 
Mr. Maughan's latest pamphlet ' (Proc. , p. 263) . On September 
2, 1857, a member said 'the cross had received a second 
coat of paint of a puce colour, over its former covering of 
blue (blue-blue, such as carts are painted with) and as these 
portions of the pillar which were not inscribed had been 
spared by the brush, it had a strange, motley aspect ' 
(p. 266). 

59 1. I can not find that Mr. Howard ever made any such 
suggestion, but he had published (Archceologia 13 (1800). 
309-312) a paper read on March 29, 1798, entitled, 'En- 
quiries concerning the Tomb of King Alfred at Hyde Abbey, 
near Winchester'; and he began his letter (p. 24, above) 
with a reference to the former article : ' The Society of Anti- 
quaries have honoured a communication of mine, respecting 
the tomb of Alfred, in a manner far beyond its deserts.' 
Maughan apparently confuses Alcfrith with Alfred the Great, 
who flourished more than two centuries later. 

592. Referring to the plate on p. 15. 

593. See note on 33. 

594. See note on 33. 

60 1. But see Anderson, Early Christ. Mon. of Scotland 
1. xxviii— ix. 
61 1. See Date, p. 123. 



Notes 



141 



63 1. See Date, p. 25. 

64 1. See note on 36 1, end. 

67 1. See Date, p. 37. 

681. Properly, Verelius. 

70 1. See Date, p. 58. 

71 1. George Stephens (1813—1895) accepted, for the most 
part, Maughan's readings, and from him they were taken 
by Henry Sweet (Oldest English Texts, 1885, p. 124) and 
others. Stephens explains (Old-Northern Runic Monuments 
1 (1866-7). 398) that his pictures of the cross (p. 399) were 
founded on Maughan's sketches, photographs, and rubbings, 
assisted by his Memoir, and that the completed drawings 
were again checked and corrected by Maughan from the stone 
itself. It is therefore not surprising that all Maughan's 
readings of illegible runes appear on the stone itself in Steph- 
ens ' two pictures of the cross, except that in the long inscrip- 
tion in Stephens' plate is sometimes reproduced by a, etc. 
In this (p. 402) the differences are (Stephens' readings in 
parenthesis) : beacn (been) ; Wcethgar (Wothgar) ; Alwfwolpu 
(Olwfwolthu) ; -ing (-ng) ; heo sinna (heo-sinna) ; sawhula 
(sowhula) ; and, in translation : Pray thou for them, their sins, 
their souls (Pray for the crime (high sin) of his soul). On the 
south face, he reads thcees for Maughan's thas, and after 
lice he conjectures he. At the top of the east face (p. 403) 
he conjectures a former frithes. On the north face he reads 
Kynnburug, and the rest on this face as Maughan does. 
As to Stephens' trustworthiness, I quote from Wimmer 
(Die Runenschrift, pp. XV, XVI, translated) : ' In everything 
for which runology is indebted to this man, a fantastic 
enthusiasm for the subject is coupled with the most amazing 
lack of insight into the questions dealt with, and with utter 
contempt for all scientific method. . . . My judgment also 
holds with reference to the treatment of Old English inscrip- 
tions, though here the author is concerned with his mother- 
tongue, and one can allow him a certain authority in virtue 
of his position. But where he can not depend upon the 
thorough work of predecessors, which he was fortunately 
able to do in the case of the larger inscriptions, but had to 

k2 



142 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

strike out for himself, he is capable of reaching incredible 
results, as in his interpretation of the Brough stone in West- 
morland, where on ten folio pages he renders a Greek in- 
scription as Old English, in a dialect which he invented for 
the occasion.' Add Henry Bradley's opinion (Diet. Nat. 
Biog. 54. 173—4): 'His own contributions to the interpre- 
tation of the inscriptions are almost worthless, owing to his 
want of accurate philological knowledge. His method of 
translation consisted in identifying the words of the in- 
scriptions with any words of similar appearance that he could 
discover in the dictionaries of ancient or modern Scandi- 
navian languages, and then forming them into some plausible 
meaning without regard to grammar. ... A ludicrous illustra- 
tion of the worthlessness of his principles of decipherment is 
afforded by his treatment of the inscription found at Brough 
in Westmoreland, which he declared to be written in Anglian 
runes, and translated in accordance with that supposition. 
When it was pointed out that the inscription consisted of 
five Greek hexameters, Stephens frankly acknowledged his 
blunder, though the acknowledgment involved the con- 
demnation of nearly all that he had done in the decipherment 
of the inscriptions.' 

Stephens' views concerning the Brough inscription (the 
stone, discovered in 1879, is now in the Fitzwilliam Museum, 
Cambridge) will be found in Trans. Cumb. and Westm. Antiq. 
and Arch. Soc, Vol. 5 (1881) ; his reprint (from MSm. de la 
Soc. Roy ale des Antiquaires du Nord, Copenhagen, 1882—4) 
of lectures delivered in the spring of 1881, entitled, Prof. S. 
Bugge's Studies in Northern Mythology (London, 1883), 
pp. 377—380 (with plate) ; and his Runic Monuments 3 (1884). 
169—179 (with plate). For the discussion by Sayce, Ridge- 
way, Bradley, and various other scholars, see Academy 25 
(1884). 421-2, 440, 458; 26 (1884). 10, 28, 47-8, 62, 77-8, 
94-5, 137-9, 173; 27 (1885). 170, 336-7; Athenaum for 
1884 2 . 664 (with plate), 741, 777, 813; Camb. Univ. Reporter 
for March 3, 1885 (pp. 495—8) ; Camb. Antiq. Soc. Report and 
Communications, No. 27 (Vol. 6, No. 1, 1887), pp. xxiii— xxix 
(read Feb. 23, 1885). The authoritative form of the Greek 



Notes 143 

inscription will be found in Kaibel, Inset . Grcecce, Sicilia, 
et Italia, additis . . . Britannia (1890), p. 671. Stephens had 
rendered it (Camb. Antiq. Soc, as above, p. xxvii) ; ' Ingalang 
in Buckenhome bigged this gravekist of Cimokom, Ahl's 
wife but born in Ecby at Ackleigh. Holy into destruction 
walked she. The mound Oscil, Osbiol, Cuhl, Oeki made. 
The body all-friend Christ, young, reaches after death; eke 
sorrow's cry never moves me more.' Professor E. C. Clark 
thus rendered the Greek in a free metrical paraphrase (same 
page) : 

Hermes of Commagene here — 
Young Hermes, in his sixteenth year — 
Entombed by fate before his day 
Beholding, let the traveller say: — 
Fair youth, my greeting to thy shrine 
Though but a mortal course be thine, 
Since all too soon thou wing'dst thy flight 
From realms of speech to realm of night; 
Yet no misnomer art thou shewn, 
Who with thy namesake God art flown. 
71 2. The character which, with Maughan, represents M 
in HW.ETRED, W^ethgar (p. 110), represents A in BEACN 
(110), FRUMAN, GEAR (96), KYNESWITHA (102), MYRCNA 
(102), WOTHGAR, ALWFWOLTHU, AFT, ALCFRITHU, EAN, 
EAC, SINNA, SAWHULA, twice (110), and o in SEXTON, 
ALWFWOLTHU, Oswiuing, HEO (110). With Haigh, it 
represents o in Flwoldu (110), heosum (116). With 
Stephens, it represents in setton, Wothgar, Olwf- 
wolthu, Oswiuing, heo-, sowhula (402). The true 
value of this rune is 0. 

The character which, with Haigh, represents m in SETTLE, 

HW.ETRED, WlTGyER, GEBIDiED (so for GEGID.EL)), ALC- 

FRITH.E (110), represents A in ALCFRTTH.E, sawlum (110; cf. 
also 116), Eanflad (121), and o in Oswu (109). With 
Stephens, it represents M in Hw^etred (402), threes (403). 
Its true value is m. 

The character which, with Haigh, represents o in Roetbert 
(110), with Stephens represents A in Wothgar, AFT, 



144 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

ALCFRITHU, EAN, EAC, SINN A, SOWHULA (402), FRUMAN, 

GEAR (403), Kyneswitha, Myrcna (404). Its true value 
is A. 

The character which, with Maughan, represents m in 
TH^S (95), with Stephens represents me in th^es (403). 

Ea is written with two characters in BEACN, EAN, EAC 
by Maughan (110) and Stephens (402), and by Maughan 
in GEAR (97), but as one character by Haigh in Eanfl^d, 
preaster (39), Eanflad (121) . It is properly written as one. 

Two runes are written in combination by Maughan (called 
by Maughan 'trirunor/ and by Stephens 'bind-stave' or 
'tie') for m (95), MA (96), EA, ON, jet, MTTL, HU (110), THU 
(94, 110) ; ER is thus written by Haigh (110). These seem to 
be otherwise unexampled in Old English runes (cf . Stephens, 
pp. 401, 403). The reading of THU in Cynnburthug 
(99) makes nonsense of the word. 

NG is represented as two characters by Maughan in 
kyninges (96), kyng (102), and by Haigh in kyng (120); 
but as one character by Haigh in CYNING (39 (3), 109, 110), 
cyngn, twice (39), and by Maughan (for ing) in CYNIING, 
OswiuiNG (110). It is properly written as one (see Hickes, 
Thesaurus, Gram. Isl., Tabella II). 

72 i. See p. 32. 

722. Not in Nicolson's letter; cf. p. 22. 

73 1. Never. 

732. There is no OE. word thun; the nearest approach to 
it is dyn{ne), din(ne), 'thin.' 

74 i. There is no ean in OE. 

742. In the seventh century, ge- would have been gi-; 
see Caedmon's Hymn. 

743. 'To pray for' is regularly (ge)biddan for, with the 
accusative or (less often) dative. 

744. A Celtic, not an OE. word. 

75 i. Wrong. 
752. Impossible. 
78 i. Wrong. 

80 1. See Date, pp. 42-3. 

802. As a Latin genitive: Signum manus Alhfripi. 



Notes 145 

80s. Properly, Riemmelth. 

81 1. Stephenson's. Properly, Stevenson's. 

81 2. Published 1838. 

81 3. Aldfrid. There was a tenth-century Aldred, the pro- 
vost, who transcribed four collects in the Durham Ritual; 
cf. Stevenson's preface to his edition, pp. ix, x. 

82 1. As late as 1911, we find such a scholar as Dalton 
saying (Byzantine Art and Archceology, p. 236, note 3) : 
'The Bewcastle and Ruthwell crosses are of the same age, 
and the former is dated by the mention of Alcfrith.' And in 
1912 Prior and Gardner say (Mediceval Figure-Sculpture in 
England, p. 117), referring to Maughan's views concerning 
Ecgfrith (p. 94, above) : ' It is true the last important word 
[Ecgfrith] is much defaced. But doubt is set at rest by the 
runes in other parts of the inscriptions — said to be quite 
distinct — of recorded contemporaries, one of these being 
Alcfrith.' Prior and Gardner, it may be said in passing, by 
referring the Bridekirk Font to the twelfth century (p. 94), 
weaken the force of Dalton 's statement (loc. cit.) : ' Runes 
would have been unintelligible in the twelfth century.' Cf. 
Collingwood, Early Sculpt. Crosses, pp. 68 ff . 

Collingwood, in the Victoria History of Cumberland (1901), 
1. 277—8, (cf. pp. 256—7), says of the inscriptions on the 
Bewcastle Cross : ' The reading which may be called the Textus 
Receptus, though not without difficulties, we owe mainly to 
the late Rev. J. Maughan of Bewcastle. It is as follows. . . . 
The main purport of the [long] inscription seems to be fairly 
clear. If the Bewcastle cross is to be dated 671, as its inscrip- 
tion and ornament seem to suggest, these runes are the ear- 
liest dated piece of English writing in existence ' ; cf . his 
Early Sculpt. Crosses, pp. 44—47. 

Dr. Thomas Hodgkin, Fellow of the British Academy, 
speaking of the Bewcastle Cross in 1906 (Hunt and Poole, 
Pol. Hist. Eng. 1. 172), called it 'a monument raised to 
his [Alchfrith's] memory.' He referred to the 'inscription 
which, though not yet deciphered beyond dispute, certainly 
says that the stone was raised as a memorial of "Alchfrith, 
son of Oswy, and aforetime King." ... An inscription seems 



146 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

to record that it was reared in the first year of his brother 
Egfrid, that is in 670/ To him ' the standing figure of a 
man with a bird on his wrist' was 'perhaps King Alchfrid 
himself with his falcon.' He thought it possible, however, 
that 'the reading of one line of the inscription, "Pray for 
his soul's great sin"' might 'prove too fanciful to be ac- 
cepted by future students.' 

83 1. Bede merely says that Oswy held the kingdom for 28 
years with great difficulty, being warred upon by the heathen 
Mercians, Alchfrith, and Ethelwald. 

84i. Rather 651 (Bede 5.24). 

842. Late in 665 or early in 666 (Bright, Early Eng. Church 
Hist., p. 213), Chad was sent to Canterbury by Oswy to be 
consecrated bishop of York, as Wilfrith, at Alcfrith's instance, 
had been consecrated in France a year or so earlier. Plummer 
says (2. 198) : 'It is certain that at this point he [Alcfrith] 
disappears from history ; and probable that that disappearance, 
whether by death or exile, was due to his rebellion against 
his father;' cf. Bright, p. 212. 

843. Bede's mention in 3.14 is nothing to the purpose; 
but cf. 3. 21. 

844. Misprint for 'reigned.' 
85 1. Bede and Eddi agree. 

861. Cuthbert was not consecrated bishop till 685; it 
was Ecgfrith who was instrumental in having Cuthbert 
called (Bede 4.28). 

862. John was made bishop in 687, under king Aldfrith. 
86 s. At the Synod of Whitby, 664. 

87 1. Rather, Iona. 

881. Bede distinctly says Oswy (3.28). 

882. Chad. 

89 1. Misprint for 664. 

892. 664, according to Plummer (Bede, Op. Hist. 2.317). 
90 1. Properly, Ettmuller. 

91 1. Soon after 642, and not later than 645 (Plummer 
2. 165). 

91 2. As he died in 725 (Bede 5. 23), he must indeed have 
been young in 645, or earlier. 



Notes 147 

92 1. This Alfwold died in 749 (Plummer 2. 107). 
92a. Kemble, Cod. Dipt. 2.337. 
94 1. Rather, lichama, lichoma. 

96 1. Such forms in -es (instead of -ces), did they exist on 
the stone, would prove that the inscriptions were not of the 
7th century; see Ccedmon's Hymn; Sievers, Gram. 237, 
note 1; Kemble, Archceologia 28.346). 

962. This word, if it could be so read, would end in -e 
(or very early -i: Sievers, Gram. 237, note 2); see Wiilfing, 
Syntax 125. 

963. See Date, p. 42, note 1. 
97 1. Read 'Nicolson.' 

98 1. Rather -buru; the error is from Hutchinson, like 
'Nicholson' for 'Nicolson.' 

982. Aldhelm's. Anselm of Canterbury lived 1033-1109. 

99 1. Cf. p. 25. 

992. The two readings are exactly the same. 
99s. Arch. 28. 347, and PI. 16. 15. 

994. Cyniburuh. 

99 s. See p. 57. 

99e. 3.21. 

100 1. But Bede died in 735. 

101 1. It was Osric, King of the Hwiccas, who founded the 
monastery of St. Peter's at Gloucester, and he surely was 
not the son of the Mercian Penda, nor, consequently, the 
brother of Cyniburg. 

102 1. In the seventh century, this would be Cyni- (Kyni-) ; 
see Bede, ed. Plummer, 2.446—7. 

1022. See the Saxon Chronicle (Laud MS.) under 656 
and 963. Both she and Cyniburg were buried at Caistor. 

102 3. These are impossible as seventh-century forms. 

103 1. In the seventh century, this word would have been 
Wulfheri (Sievers, Gram. 246, note 1; Bede, ed. Plummer, 
1. 141, 199, 206, 207, 354). 

105i. White. See p. 58. 

1052. See note on 36 1. 

106 1. See note on 59 1. 

106 2. See pp. 96, 108, 121. 



148 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 

108 1. No such rune is known to me. 
llOi. UM^E should have been transliterated UME, and 
the last two lines should read: 

EBID.ED: HE 

OSUM: SAWLUM, 

allowing the M of the first line to be identical with the A of 
the second. 
116 1. hissum and heosum are equally impossible. 

123 1. See p. 43. 

1232. See pp. 40, 76. 

1233. See pp. 39, 41. 

1234. See pp. 36, 48. 
123 5. See pp. 45, 46. 
124i. See p. 42. 

Supplementary note on 2i. 

The nucleus of Camden's statement is to be found in a 
communication made to him by Mr. Bainbrigg, schoolmaster 
at Appleby, who made a tour in 1601 (Camden was never 
in Cumberland save in 1599), in the interest of the Britannia. 
His words are (Cott. Julius F. 6, fol. 321) : 'Crux quae est in 
caemiterio est viginti fere pedum, ex uno quadrato lapide 
graphice exciso cum hac inscriptione : 

D+BOROX-* 

Talem Edwardus primus in Alienorae conjugis memoriam 
posuit, vel qualem Roisia mulier eo tempore celeberrima ad 
Roistone statuit.' This is apparently the very first mention 
of the Bewcastle Cross, and accounts for Roscarrock's 
statement about Eborax. See Professor F. Haverfield's 
communication in Trans. Cumb. and Westm. Antiq. and 
Archceol. Assoc, N. S. 11 (1911). 355 (cf. 349, 376, 377). 

* In Bainbrigg's manuscript the D has a vertical stroke in the middle. 



YALE STUDIES IN ENGLISH. 

Albert S. Cook, Editor. 

I. The Foreign Sources of Modern English Versification. 

Charlton M. Lewis, Ph.D. $0.50. 
II. iElfric : A New Study of his Life and Writings. Caroline 

Louisa White, Ph.D. $1.50. 
III. The Life of St. Cecilia, from MS. Ashmole 43 and MS. 
Cotton Tiberius E. VII, with Introduction, Variants, and 
Glossary. Bertha Ellen Lovewell, Ph.D. $1.00. 
PV. Dryden's Dramatic Theory and Practice. Margaret Sher- 
wood, Ph.D. $0.50. 
V. Studies in Jonson's Comedy. Elisabeth Woodbridge, 

Ph.D. $0.50. 
VI. A Glossary of the West Saxon Gospels, Latin-West Saxon 
and West Saxon-Latin. Mattie Anstice Harris, Ph.D. 
$1.50. 
VTL Andreas : The Legend of St. Andrew, translated from the 
Old English, with an Introduction. Robert Kilburn 
Root, Ph.D. $0.50. 
VTU. The Classical Mythology of Milton's English Poems. 
Charles Grosvenor Osgood, Ph.D. $1.00. 
DC. A Guide to the Middle English Metrical Romances dealing 
with English and Germanic Legends, and with the 
Cycles of Charlemagne and of Arthur. Anna Hunt 
Billings, Ph.D. $1.50. 

X. The Earliest Lives of Dante, translated from the Italian of 

Giovanni Boccaccio and Lionardo Bruni Aretino. James 
Robinson Smith. $0.75. 

XI. A Study in Epic Development. Irene T. Myers, Ph.D. 

$1.00. 
XH. The Short Story. Henry Seidel Canby, Ph.D. $0.30. 
XUI. King Alfred's Old English Version of St. Augustine's 
Soliloquies, edited with Introduction, Notes, and 
Glossary. Henry Lee Hargrove, Ph.D. $1.00. 



Yale Studies in English 

XIV. The Phonology of the Northumbrian Gloss of St. 

Matthew. Emily Howard Foley, Ph.D. $0.75. 
XV. Essays on the Study and Use of Poetry by Plutarch 
and Basil the Great, translated from the Greek, 
with an Introduction. Frederick M. Padelford, 
PhD. $0.75. 
XVI. The Translations of Beowulf: A Critical Bibliography. 

Chauncey B. Tinker, Ph.D. $0.75. 
XVII. The Alchemist, by Ben Jonson, edited with Intro- 
duction, Notes, and Glossary. Charles M. Hatha. 
way, Jr., Ph.D. $2.50. Cloth, $3.00. 
XVIII. The Expression of Purpose in Old English Prose 
Hubert Gibson Shearin, Ph.D. $1.00. 
XLX. Classical Mythology in Shakespeare. Robert Kilburn 

Root, Ph.D. $1.00. 
XX. The Controversy between the Puritans and the Stage. 

Elbert N. S. Thompson, Ph.D. $2.00. 
XXL The Elene of Cynewulf, translated into English Prose. 

Lucius Hudson Holt, Ph.D. $0.30. 
XXII. King Alfred's Old English Version of St. Augustine's 
Soliloquies, turned into Modern English. Henry Lee 
Hargrove, Ph.D. $0.75. 
XXDI. The Cross in the Life and Literature of the Anglo-Saxons. 

William O. Stevens, Ph.D. $0.75. 
XXIV. An Index to the Old English Glosses of the Durham 

Hymnarium. Harvey W. Chapman. $0.75. 
XXV. Bartholomew Fair, by Ben Jonson, edited with Introduc- 
tion, Notes, and Glossary. Carroll Storrs Alden, 
PhD. $2.00. 
XXVI. Select Translations from Scaliger's Poetics. Frederick 

M. Padelford, Ph.D. $0.75. 
XXVII. Poetaster, by Ben Jonson, edited with Introduction, 
Notes, and Glossary. Herbert S. Mallory, Ph.D. 
$2.00. Cloth, $2.50. 
XXVm. The Staple of News, by Ben Jonson, edited with 
Introduction, Notes, and Glossary. De Winter, 
PhD. $2.00. Cloth, $2.50. 



Tale Studies in English 

XXIX. The Devil is an Ass, by Ben Jonson, edited with In- 
troduction, Notes, and Glossary. William Savage 
Johnson, Ph.D. $2.00. Cloth, $2.50. 
XXX. The Language of the Northumbrian Gloss to the 
Gospel of St. Luke. Margaret Dutton Kellum, 
Ph.D. $0.75. 

XXXI. Epicoene, by Ben Jonson, edited with Introduction 
Notes, and Glossary. Aurelia Henry, Ph.D. $2.00. 
Cloth, $2.50. 
XXXH. The Syntax of the Temporal Clause in Old English 

Prose. Arthur Adams, Ph.D. $1.00. 
XXXin. The Knight of the Burning Pestle, by Beaumont and 
Fletcher, edited with Introduction, Notes, and 
Glossary. Herbert S. Murch, Ph.D. $2.00. Cloth, 
$2.50. 
XXXrV. The New Inn, by Ben Jonson, edited with Intro- 
duction, Notes, and Glossary. George Bremner 
Tennant, Ph.D. $2.00. Cloth, $2.50. 
XXXV. A Glossary of Wulfstan's Homilies. Loring H. Dodd, 

Ph.D. $1.00. 
XXXVI. The Complaint of Nature, translated from the Latin 
of Alain de Lille. Douglas M. Moffat. $0.75. 
XXXVII. The Collaboration of Webster and Dekker. Fred- 
erick Erastus Pierce, Ph.D. $1.00. 
XXXVm. English Nativity Plays, edited with Introduction 
Notes, and Glossary. Samuel B. Hemingway, Ph.D. 
$2.00. Cloth $2.50. 
XXXIX. Concessive Constructions in Old English Prose. 
Josephine May Burnham, Ph.D. $1.00. 
XL. The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, by John Milton, 
edited with Introduction and Notes. William 
Talbot Allison, Ph.D. $1.25. 
XLI. Biblical Quotations in Middle English Literature 

before 1350. Mary W. Smyth, Ph.D. $2.00. 
XLIL The Dialogue in English Literature. Elizabeth 
Merrill, Ph.D. $1.00. 



Yale Studies in English 

XLIII. A Study of Tindale's Genesis, compared with the 

Genesis of Coverdaleand of the Authorized Version. 

Elizabeth Whittlesey Cleaveland, Ph.D. $2.00. 
XLIV. The Presentation of Time in the Elizabethan Drama. 

Mable Buland, Ph.D. $1.50. 
XLV. Cynthia's Revels, or, The Fountain of Self-Love, by 

Ben Jonson, edited with Introduction, Notes, and 

Glossary. Alexander Corbin Judson, Ph.D. $2.00. 
XL VI. Richard Brome: A Study of his Life and Works. 

Clarence Edward Andrews, Ph.D. $1.25. 
XL VII. The Magnetic Lady, or, Humors Reconciled, by Ben 

Jonson, edited with Introduction, Notes, and 

Glossary. Harvey Whitefield Peck, Ph.D. $2.00 
XLV1II. Genesis A (sometimes attributed to Caedmon). 

Lawrence Mason, Ph.D. $1.00. 
XLIX. The Later Version of the Wycliffite Epistle to the 

Romans, compared with the Latin Original: 

A Study of Wycliffite English. Emma Curtiss 

Tucker, Ph.D. $1.50. 
L. Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross between 

the Years 1607 and 1861. Albert Stanburrough 

Cook. $1.50. 



LBJa'15 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2010 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEAOER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



